TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ession. According to landlords, they purchased the property only to accommodate their daughter and son in law who are residing in a rented building at Mannargudi and they wanted this building to accommodate them. It is also said that whenever they come to India, they also want to occupy the building along with their daughter. After Ex.P1 was executed, the fact was informed to tenant as per registered notice dated 26.8.1993 calling upon tenant to attorn the tenancy, According to landlord after they purchased the property, rent was not paid and in spite of notice dated 26.8.1993, no rent was paid by tenant. Rate of rent according to landlords in ₹ 650/- and on the date of eviction petition more than ₹ 17,550/- was due towards rent arrears. Eviction petition was therefore filed for eviction of tenant. 3. In the counter statement filed by tenant he admitted that he became tenant under Abdul Subban and Abdul Samad. But according to him, rate of rent is not ₹ 650, but 250/- He further said that Abdul Samad had entered into an agreement for sale with one Swaminathan and at the request of Abdul Samad, rent was paid to Swaminathan. He also alleged that after receipt of no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmitting power of attorney to act as power agent of landlords and prosecute the application. The order of Rent Controller is dated 28.3.1995 and the same was not challenged by tenant. P.W.1 also spoken in her evidence that she is power agent. She was also not cross-examined at that time. Present contention in revision therefore cannot be entertained and on merits also the contention cannot stand. 10. An argument was taken by learned counsel that these landlords have purchased the property violating the provisions of Section 31 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and therefore they cannot seek eviction. This contention also was not raised at the earliest stage but being a question of law, this also could be answered. Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act reads thus. "Sec. 31 (1) No person who is not a citizen of India and no company other than a banking company which is not incorporated under any law in force in India shall except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, acquire or hold or transfer or dispose of by sale, mortgage, lease, gift, settlement or otherwise any immovable property situate in India: Provided that nothing in this su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Property Act provide for the same. After extracting the section the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 6 SCC 373 (S.K Sattar S.K Mohd. v. Gundappa Amabadas) in paragraphs 17 to 19 considered the effect of Section 109 of TP Act and held thus. "17. This section is based on the maxim, qui in jus ominiumve alterius succedit jure ejus uti debet, that is to say, rights and liabilities attached to the property (arising out of possession and control of that property) pass with the property. 18. A bare reading of the first part of the section indicates that if the property is either transferred as a whole or any part thereof alone is transferred, the transferee comes to possess all the rights of the lessor. 19. The proviso appended to the first part of the section contemplates that before a tenant can be made liable to pay rent to the transferee, he must have knowledge of the transfer either through the lessor or by his transferee by a notice. Requirement of knowledge of transfer in this section as also in Sections 37 to 50 is based on the general principle of law set out by Willes. J. in De Nicholas v. Saunders (1870) 22 LT 661 : 18 W.R 1106: LR 5 CP 589) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h makes transaction void or says that no title in the property passes to the purchaser in case there is contravention of the provision of sub-sections (1) of Section 31. Section 31. Section 63 contains a proviso regarding confiscation of certain properties but it does not contain any provision for confiscation if there is breach of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 31. Therefore, the property purchased in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 31 is also not liable to confiscation. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain possession of the property or recover damages for its use and occupation." From the above decision also it is clear that landlords herein have acquired valid title and when they became landlords, entitled to receive rent from the tenant. Section 31 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not having the effect of nullifying the transfer and the purchasers are also getting good title to the property. 13. Further question arises for consideration is whether the finding of authorities below are liable to be interfered with under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act when tenant is wilful defaulter and landlord....