NDLI: Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1982 Revisional jurisdiction Power of Attorney Act Rent Control and Eviction Revision
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Power of Attorney (amendment) Act, 1982 (55 of 1982)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Rent Control and Eviction: Revision - Revisional jurisdiction - Exercise of, by the High Court in rent matters - Held: High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it, however, to satisfy itself, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts - Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal - On facts, in revision petition, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded in landlords' favour by Rent Controller and First Appellate Court - Revision was allowed on the grounds of non-joinder of one of the co-owners of the suit property and non-establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant by appellant-wife and sons of deceased landlord with respondent no. 1 in relation to suit premises - Non-joinder of one of the co-owners of the suit property would have no effect and relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties, thus, the revision petition is dismissed - Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Rent Controller and First Appellate Court in appellants' favour on the issue of appellants bona-fide need and default committed by respondent No. 1 in paying rent to the appellants, binding on the High Court - Findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence, thus, does not call for any interference. Title of the landlord of the suit premises - Examination of - As to whether the tenancy was between the appellants-wife and sons of deceased landlord and respondent No. 1 -tenant or between the power of attorney holder of landlord and respondent No. 1 -tenant - Held: Tenancy was between the landlord-original owner and respondent No. 1 -tenant and on the death of landlord it was created between the appellants being the Class-I heirs of landlord and respondent No.1 -tenant by operation of law - Power of attorney holder of original owner executed the tenancy agreement on behalf of the original owner in favour of respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises - Such execution was for and on behalf of his principal-original owner, which resulted in creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between original owner and respondent No.1 -tenant in relation to the suit premises - Such act done by power of attorney holder did not create any right, title and interest in his favour and nor he ever asserted any such right in himself - Effect of execution of tenancy agreement by an agent was as if original owner himself had executed with tenant - More so, tenant in clear terms admitted his status as being the tenant - Thus, the High Court was not right in holding that the tenancy in relation to suit premises was with the power of attorney holder - Appellants were able to prove that the tenancy in relation to the suit premises was between the original owner and respondent No.1 -tenant and on the death of original owner, it was created between the appellants and respondent No.1 by operation of law which entitled the appellants to maintain the eviction petition against respondent No.1 - Judgement of the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored - Eviction petition by appellants against the respondent No.1 -tenant in relation to the suit premises allowed. Party/Parties - Non-impleadment as necessary parties - Effect of - Eviction petition under the Rent Laws by wife and sons of deceased landlord - Failure to implead daughter of the deceased landlord was a necessary party to the eviction petition - Order of High Court that the eviction petition was not maintainable - On appeal, held: It is not necessary to implead all the co-owners/ landlords in the eviction petition - It was not necessary for the wife and sons of deceased landlord to implead the daughter - More so, the High Court should not have allowed respondent No. I-tenant to raise such objection for the first time in the revision - Daughter having been later impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not even available to respondent No. 1 - Eviction petition is maintainable - Order of the High Court set aside. Power of Attorney Act, 1982 - Power of attorney - Nature and scope of - Held: An agent acting under a power of attorney executed or done in the name of principal, i.e., by the principal himself - It is 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 - An agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Neutral Citation	2016 INSC 99
Petitioner	Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors.
Respondent	M. Chinniyan & Anr.
SCR	[2016] 1 S.C.R. 18
Judgement Date	2009-01-28
Case Number	5158

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Thankamony Amma & Ors. Vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors.

S.r. Radhakrishnan and Ors. Vs. Neelamegam

M/s Shrikrishna Oil Mill Vs. M/s Radhakrishnan Ramchandra

M/s Alagu Pharmacy & Ors. Vs. N. Magudeswari

Savitri Sahay Vs. Sachianand Prasad

Addissery Raghavan Vs. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan

Kailash Chandra and Anr Vs. Mukundi Lal and Ors.

Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and Anr.

K. Raghunath Vs. Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.

Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Thankamony Amma & Ors. Vs. Omana Amma N. & Ors.

S.r. Radhakrishnan and Ors. Vs. Neelamegam

M/s Shrikrishna Oil Mill Vs. M/s Radhakrishnan Ramchandra

M/s Alagu Pharmacy & Ors. Vs. N. Magudeswari

Savitri Sahay Vs. Sachianand Prasad

Addissery Raghavan Vs. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan

Kailash Chandra and Anr Vs. Mukundi Lal and Ors.

Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and Anr.

K. Raghunath Vs. Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.