2016 Supreme(SC) 87

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M. Chinniyan & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2009
Decided on : 28-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Revisional jurisdiction is not appellate jurisdiction. Re-appreciation and reassessment of evidence is not permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Scope and nature of enquiry as to title of landlord is different from that in a title suit.
Joinder of all co-owners is not necessary in an eviction suit.
Tenancy lease deed executed by a power of attorney holder creates tenancy between the principal and the tenant and not between the power of attorney holder and the tenant.

Headnote:(a) Rent Control laws – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Not appellate jurisdiction – Re-appreciation or re-assessment of evidence is not permissible – High Court to only examine legality or propriety of the impugned order – It cannot interfere with finding of facts by first appellate court/authority if the same is not perverse – High Court cannot interfere with finding of fact merely because it has a different view. (Para 33)

       (2014) 9 SCC 78 – Relied upon

       (b) Rent Control laws – Scope and nature of enquiry as to title of landlord – Different from that in a title suit – In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. (Para 34)

       (2002) 3 SCC 375 – Relied upon

       (c) Rent Control laws – Eviction suit – Joinder of all co-owners – Not necessary – Any one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant. (Para 35)

       (2002) 6 SCC 16 – Relied upon

       (d) Power of Attorney Act, 1982 – Section 1-A and 2 – Contract Act, Chapter X – A person executing a document as power of attorney holder does not do so in the capacity of his principal – Tenancy lease deed executed by a power of attorney holder creates tenancy between the principal and the tenant and not between the power of attorney holder and the tenant. (Para 43)

       (2012) 1 SCC 656; (2012) 8 SCC 706 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants (plaintiffs) are the wife and sons of one A. Radhakrishnan. The suit premises was allotted to A. Radhakrishan by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In fact, entire area was acquired by the Housing Board and one house site therein was allotted to A. Radhakrishnan. Subsequently, A. Radhakrishnan made construction on the site allotted to him.

       On 22.02.1987, A. Radhakrishnan executed a general power of attorney in favour of one V. Dhanapal and nominated him to administer and manage the suit premises on his behalf.

       Respondent No.1 took the suit premises on lease rent from Dhanapal.

       Respondent No.1 also, in the meantime, filed a suit being O.S. No. 87 of 1989 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Erode against A. Radhakrishnan and the appellants herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing them from the suit premises.

       Since A. Radhakrishnan was refusing to accept the rent from February 1989, respondent No.1 filed a petition in the Court of the Rent Controller of Erode. In the meantime on 23.09.1994, A. Radhakrishnan expired intestate leaving behind him the present appellants as his class I heirs and one daughter – Tmt. R. Kanjana. The appellants thus became the owners of the suit premises by inheritance.

       The appellants filed Eviction Petition in the Court of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Erode against respondent No. 1 seeking eviction of respondent No.1 from the suit premises.

       The Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants and passed a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of respondent No.1 over the suit property and from dispossessing him till he was evicted under a due process of law.

       The Rent Controller allowed RCOP No. 26 of 1998 filed by the appellants and directed the eviction of respondent No.1 from the suit premises.

       Respondent No.1 filed an appeal bearing in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Erode which was dismissed and the judgment passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed.

       The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court which was ultimately allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned order cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.