TMT. KASTHURI RADHAKRISHNAN & ORS. versus M. CHINNIYAN & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 28-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2016] l S.C.R. 18 
TMT. KASTHURI RADHAKRISHNAN & ORS. 
v. 
M. CHINNIYAN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5158 OF 2009) 
JANUARY 28, 2016. 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
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. I -tenant 
- Held: Tenancy was between the landlord-original owner and 
respondent No. I-tenant and on the death of landlord it was created 
18 
TMT. KASTHURI RADHAKRISHNAN v. M. CHINNIYAN 
19 
between the appellants being the Class-I heirs of landlord and A 
respondent No. I-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.I 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. 
I -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 
B 
c 
the original owner and respondent No.I-tenant and on the death of D 
original owner, it was created between the appellants and respondent 
No.I by operation of law which entitled the appellants to maintain 
the eviction petition against respondent No.I - Judgment of the 
High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored 
- Eviction petition by appellants against the respondent No. I -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 eve

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.