2000 (7) TMI 994 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the person filing the eviction petition.
2. Validity of property acquisition under Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
3. Wilful default in payment of rent.
4. Bonafide requirement for landlord's own occupation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the person filing the eviction petition:
The tenant contended that the eviction petition was not maintainable as it was filed by a power agent whose authority was not produced in court. However, this contention was dismissed as it was not raised at the earliest stage of proceedings. The power agent had filed the power of attorney and obtained permission to act as the landlords' agent, which was not challenged by the tenant. The court found no merit in this submission and upheld the competence of the person filing the eviction petition.

2. Validity of property acquisition under Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The tenant argued that the landlords' acquisition of the property violated Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which restricts property acquisition by non-citizens without Reserve Bank permission. The court clarified that while the Act imposes penalties for violations, it does not render the transaction void or nullify the title passed to the purchaser. Citing precedents, the court concluded that the landlords had acquired valid title to the property and were entitled to receive rent from the tenant.

3. Wilful default in payment of rent:
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found the tenant to be a wilful defaulter in rent payment. The tenant admitted to a rental arrangement with the previous landlords but disputed the rent amount. The court found credible evidence supporting the landlords' claim of a Rs. 650/- rent, rejecting the tenant's assertion of Rs. 250/-. The tenant's claim of paying rent to a third party, Swaminathan, was also dismissed due to lack of evidence. The court upheld the finding that the tenant had not paid rent despite being notified of the property sale and attornment request, constituting wilful default.

4. Bonafide requirement for landlord's own occupation:
The landlords sought eviction for their daughter and son-in-law's occupation, who were residing in a rented building. The tenant did not dispute this claim in his counter statement. The court noted that the landlords' requirement was presumed bona fide, and the tenant failed to rebut this presumption. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found the landlords' claim genuine, and the court upheld this finding, emphasizing the lack of evidence suggesting an oblique motive by the landlords.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed with costs, affirming the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The tenant's contentions regarding the competence of the eviction petition, the validity of property acquisition, wilful default in rent payment, and the landlords' bona fide requirement for occupation were all rejected. The court upheld the landlords' right to evict the tenant based on the established grounds.