TMT. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.
|
Head Note
Civil Law - Eviction suit
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, Sections 10 (2) and 10(3)(a)(i) - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Grounds of willful default in paying monthly rent - Concurrent findings - Revisional jurisdiction - High Court allowed the revision filed by respondent No.1 on the two grounds only that co-owner has not been made party and tenancy was not made by 'A' by 'D' who was attorney holder of 'A' hence petition not maintainable - Said findings reversed by Apex Court - Revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 before the High Court deserves to be dismissed as the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the first appellate Court in appellants' favour on the issue of appellants bona fide need for their personal residence and default committed by respondent No.1 in paying rent to the appellants were binding on the High Court - These findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence as is required to be done in eviction matters and hence, they do not call for any interference in this appeal - Eviction petition filed by the appellants against respondent No.1 in relation to the suit premises allowed - Respondent No.1 is, however, granted three months' time to vacate the suit premises from the date of this judgment.
Civil Law - Eviction suit
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, Sections 10 (2) and 10(3)(a)(i) - Eviction - Necessary Party - Grounds of willful default in paying monthly rent - Bona fide need - Revisional jurisdiction - New plea - Necessary party - Non joinder of co-owner - Held that it was not necessary for the appellants to implead the daughter of late 'A' in the eviction petition - High Court should not have allowed respondent No.1 to raise such objection for the first time in the revision because it was not raised in the courts below - Daughter having been later impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not even available to respondent No.1 - Finding of the High Court not concurred and liable to be reversed holding that the eviction petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the daughter of late 'A' and is held maintainable.
Civil Law - Eviction suit
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, Sections 10 (2) and 10(3)(a)(i) - Eviction - Power of Attorney Holder - Grounds of willful default in paying monthly rent - Landlord - Tenant - Attorney holder - To begin with the tenancy was between 'A' and respondent No.1 - On the death of 'A', it was created between the appellants being the Class- I heirs of 'A' and respondent No.1 by operation of law - 'D' was a power of attorney holder of 'A' - He executed the tenancy agreement on behalf of the original owner - 'A' in favour of respondent No.1 - Such act done by 'D' did not create any right, title and interest in his favour and nor he ever asserted any such right in himself and indeed rightly qua 'A' or the appellants in relation to suit premises - Respondent No.1 in clear terms admitted in his evidence and in the pleading of cases filed by him against the appellants about his status as being the tenant - High Court should have held this issue in appellants' favour.
Civil Law - Eviction suit
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, Sections 10 (2) and 10(3)(a)(i) - Eviction - Tenancy by POWER of Attorney Holder - Grounds of willful default in paying monthly rent - Landlord - Tenant - Attorney holder -'D', who was acting as an agent of 'A' on the strength of power of attorney, executed the tenancy agreement with respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises - He did such execution for and behalf of his principal-'A' which resulted in creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between 'A' and respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises - In this execution,'D' being an agent did not get any right, title and interest of any nature either in the suit premises or in tenancy in himself - The effect of execution of tenancy agreement by an agent was as if 'A' himself had executed with respondent No.1 - High Court was not right in holding that the tenancy in relation to suit premises was with 'D'.
Civil Law - Power of Attorney
An agent acting under a power of attorney always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal - Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name of principal, i.e., by the principal himself - An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal - Any act or thing done by the agent on the strength of power of attorney is, therefore, never construed or/and treated to have been done by the agent in his personal capacity so as to create any right in his favour but is always construed as having done by the principal himself - An agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature.
Topic(s)-Eviction - Necessary Party - Power of Attorney Holder - Eviction allowed