Madras High Court
K.Rajendran vs M. Natarajan on 3 April, 2013
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03/04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No345 of 2012 & M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 K.Rajendran ... Petitioner/Appellant/ Respondent/Tenant Vs M. Natarajan ... Respondent/Respondent/ Petitioner/Landlord Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the order dated 31.10.2011 made in R.C.A.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai, confirming the order dated 03.06.2010 made in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court(Rent Controller) Thirumangalam. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan :ORDER
The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court( Rent Controller) Thirumangalam, for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default and different user and eviction was ordered on both grounds and the appeal filed by the revision petitioner in R.C.A.No.57 of 2010 was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that admittedly, the respondent is not a owner of the property and he was collecting the rent from the revision petitioner as an Agent of the owner and therefore as per Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 when the person collecting the rent as an agent, without the written consent of the landlord he cannot file an application for eviction and therefore the application for eviction filed by the respondent is not maintainable in law and it is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the respondent also produced the General Power of Attorney executed by the owner of the building Ex.A6 and in that document there was no reference to the authorization given by the owners to initiate eviction proceedings against the tenant and therefore the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent was not maintainable and he has no locus standi to initiate the proceedings and therefore the orders of the Court below are liable to be set aside.
3.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 would apply only when the person collects the rent merely as an agent and when a person was collecting the rent not as an agent there is no need to get written consent from the landlord for filing an eviction petition and in this case it has not been stated by the respondent that he was collecting rent as agent of the landlord and he filed an application as landlord and therefore there is no question of getting written consent under Section Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 of the Act, for filing an application. He also relied upon the judgment the case of Kasturchand -Vs- Raman Rajan and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 217. He further submitted that the petition was filed by him as a landlord and not as the Power Agent of the owners and therefore even in the absence of any authorization to initiate proceedings he is entitled to file an application for eviction having regard the definition of the landlord as per Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960.
4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. It is seen from the petition that the petition was filed by the respondent in the capacity of the landlord. The landlord has been defined in Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 which includes as follows:
(6)"Landlord" includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant.
Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 and Section 10(8) of the Act, were considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kasturchand -Vs- Raman Rajan and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 217 and the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
"5. Section 2(6) is an inclusive definition of landlord and it is wide in terms. It includes various persons in the category of landlord. Sub-Section (6) of Section 2 reads:
Section 2(6). "Landlord" includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.
6.The sub-Section thus shows that any person acting on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others is a landlord. An agent is defined as a landlord; so is a trustee; so is a guardian. The definition being wide and also inclusive does not exclude a person who at all material times acted as a landlord to the knowledge of all the parties concerned and whose authority to deal with the premises has never been disputed. A person who so acts falls within the definition not as a mere agent, as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act. He may also be an agent, but not a mere agent. He is much more than that, particularly in the light of the facts of the case. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent was for all purposes treated by all parties interested in the transaction as a landlord. In respect of such a person, Section 10(8) which refers to a mere agent, is not attracted."
5.Therefore, though the respondent is not the owner of the property, the revision petitioner admitted that he was paying the rent only to the respondent and therefore he is the landlord as per Section 2(6) of the Act and he also filed an application for eviction in that capacity and he was not collecting the rent as mere agent and therefore having regard to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, there is no need for the respondent to get the written consent from the landlord. Further, as rightly submitted by the respondent the petition was filed by the respondent in the capacity of the landlord and not as an agent of the Principal and therefore the absence of any clause in the power of attorney executed under Ex.A6 authorizing the respondent to initiate the proceedings will not disentitle, the respondent from initiating the proceedings for eviction as he has not relied upon the power of attorney executed in his favour. Further, the power of attorney came into existence after the eviction petition was filed. Hence, the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be considered and no other point was argued by the revision petitioner and hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
gsr To The District Munsif Court(Rent Controller) Thirumangalam.