Landlord title and eviction rights survive transfer despite foreign exchange restrictions, while concurrent findings on default and need were upheld.

An eviction petition filed through a power agent was held maintainable where the tenant did not timely object, did not plead lack of authority, and the agent's role was supported by unchallenged evidence. Transfer of the landlord's interest on execution of a sale deed vested title in the transferee under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act; section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not invalidate the transfer or bar the purchasers from seeking eviction. Concurrent findings of wilful default in rent and bona fide requirement for own occupation were upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the eviction petition was incompetent because it had been instituted through a power agent without proof of authority. (ii) Whether purchase of the property by persons allegedly hit by section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act disabled them from seeking eviction and whether title passed on execution of the sale deed. (iii) Whether the findings of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for own occupation called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the eviction petition was incompetent because it had been instituted through a power agent without proof of authority.

Analysis: The objection was not raised at the earliest stage and the tenant had not pleaded that the power agent lacked authority. The power agent had sought and obtained permission to prosecute the proceedings, and that order was never challenged. The evidence also showed that she acted as power agent and was not cross-examined on that aspect.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the eviction petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether purchase of the property by persons allegedly hit by section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act disabled them from seeking eviction and whether title passed on execution of the sale deed.

Analysis: Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act was applied to hold that rights of the lessor pass to the transferee on transfer, while notice to the tenant is only a condition precedent for payment of rent to the transferee and does not postpone transfer of title. Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was held not to render the transfer void or to nullify the purchaser's title. On the contrary, the purchasers acquired valid title and became entitled to demand rent and seek eviction.

Conclusion: The transfer was held valid for the purpose of landlord status, and the landlords were entitled to maintain the eviction proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the findings of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for own occupation called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The authorities below had concurrently found that the tenant failed to tender rent after notice, that payment to a third person was unsupported, and that deposits in court did not amount to valid tender. They also found bona fide requirement established, as the landlords needed the premises for their daughter and son-in-law and the tenant had not rebutted that case. In revision, concurrent findings could not be disturbed merely because another view was possible.

Conclusion: The findings on wilful default and bona fide requirement were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The tenant's revision failed on all substantial grounds, and the eviction order based on wilful default and bona fide requirement was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of the landlord's interest vests title in the transferee on execution of the sale deed, and section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act does not invalidate that transfer; concurrent factual findings of wilful default and bona fide requirement are not open to interference in revision absent legal error.

---