Case Note & Summary
The appellant, A. Mahalakshmi, held a power of attorney from the original owners of a property and executed a rental agreement dated 23.05.2007 in favour of Bala Venkatram (original tenant) for running 'Best Mark Super Market' at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000. The tenant paid rent only till October 2007 and later changed the shop name to 'Amutham Super Market'. The landlady discovered that the premises had been sublet to Shahu Hameed (respondent no.2), evidenced by a sales tax certificate and licence in the subtenant's name. She issued a legal notice and filed an eviction petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b), and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed it on the ground of subletting. The High Court, in revision, set aside the eviction decree, holding that the landlady failed to prove subletting. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the eviction decree. The Court held that the appellant is a landlady under Section 2(6) of the Act as she executed the lease and received rent, making the eviction petition maintainable. On merits, the Court found that the landlady had established subletting through documentary evidence and the tenant's failure to prove partnership. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence without finding perversity. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction decree was restored.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Burden of Proof - The landlady must establish that the tenant parted with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of a third party with exclusive right of possession and without the landlady's consent - In the present case, the landlady proved subletting through sales tax certificate and licence in the name of the subtenant, and the tenant's failure to produce partnership deed despite claiming partnership - Held that the Rent Control Appellate Authority correctly found subletting, and the High Court erred in reversing that finding in revisional jurisdiction (Paras 6.2-6.5). B) Rent Control - Definition of Landlord - Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - A person who receives rent and has executed a rental agreement can be considered a landlord even if not the owner - The appellant, as power of attorney holder who executed the lease and received rent, is a landlady under Section 2(6) - Held that the eviction petition filed by the appellant is maintainable (Paras 6.1, 10). C) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 cannot reappreciate evidence like a first appellate court unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence - The High Court erred by substituting its own view on facts without finding perversity - Held that the High Court's order is unsustainable (Paras 6.3-6.5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the eviction decree on the ground of subletting, and whether the appellant, being a power of attorney holder, is a landlady entitled to maintain an eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the eviction decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of subletting.
Law Points
- Subletting
- Burden of proof
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Definition of landlord under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act
- 1960
- Maintainability of eviction petition by power of attorney holder
