<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (7) TMI 994 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283259</link>
    <description>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&#039;s role was supported by unchallenged evidence. Transfer of the landlord&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:09:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=587432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 994 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283259</link>
      <description>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&#039;s role was supported by unchallenged evidence. Transfer of the landlord&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>