ORDER: Heard. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 13.8.2001 made in R.C.A. No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karaikal, confirming the order dated 25.8.2000 made in H.R.C.O.P. No.7 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller at Karaikal, evicting the petitioner from the petition property, filed by the respondent under Secs.10(2)(vi)(ii) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1969, on the ground that the petitioner had committed a willful default in payment of the rent in spite of a statutory notice dated 16.4.1998 and also denied the title of the respondent over the petition property. 3. Concedingly, the petition property was originally owned by the revision petitioner and then sold to one Bonjean Michal Francois, under a registered sale deed dated 1.10.1992, and thereafter the same was purchased by the respondent under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1997. The respondent thus claiming title over the suit property issued a statutory notice dated 16.4.1998 for rent payable by the revision petitioner, who continues to be in possession of the petition property without paying rent either to the said Bonjean Michal Francois or to the respondent, in spite of the above conveyances. 4. Since the revision petitioner questioned the very purchase of the petition property by Bonjean Michal Francois and thereafter by the respondent as illegal, challenged the title of the respondent as the landlord of the petition property, and failed to pay the rent to either Bonjean Michal Francois or the respondent, an eviction proceeding was initiated in H.R.C.O.P. No.7 of 1999, by the respondent. 5. The revision petitioner resisted the eviction proceeding contending that: (i) the sale of the petition property either to Bonjean Michal Francois or to the respondent, under registered sale deeds dated 1.10.1992 and 26.12.1997, respectively, is illegal as the same is prohibited under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; and (ii) the sale transactions dated 1.10.1992 and 26.12.1997 are forbidden in law as per Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore, the respondent has no valid title over the petition property and consequently he cannot claim any rent from the petitioner; and inter alia contended that there is no tenancy agreement between the revision petitioner and the respondent. 6. 6. The learned Rent Controller, after carefully considering the sale executed by the petitioner himself, under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 1.10.1992, in favour of Bonjean Michal Francois for valid consideration, as well as the admissions of the revision petitioner himself that, (i) the respondent herein had purchased the petition property from Bonjean Michal Francois under a sale deed dated 26.12.1997; (ii) the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the petition property as tenant ever since the date of sale of petition property in favour of Bonjean Michal Francois on 1.10.1992, by the petitioner himself, but without paying rent either to Bonjean Michal Francois or to the respondent herein; and (ii) the patta of the petition property got transferred from the petitioner to Bonjean Michal Francois under Ex.A-16 and thereafter, from Bonjean Michal Francois in favour of the respondent herein under Ex.A-15, came to the conclusion that the respondent had proved his title over the petition property and therefore entitled to receive rent for the petition property as a landlord, as the revision petitioner is continuing to be in occupation of the petition property as tenant, without paying any rent either to Bonjean Michal Francois or to the respondent; and therefore ordered eviction as prayed for by order dated 25.8.2000 in H.R.C.O.P. No.7 of 1999, and the same was on appeal in R.C.A. No.11 of 2000 confirmed by the Appellate Authority order dated 13.8.2001. Hence, the above revision. 7. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that the purchase of the petition property by Bonjean Michal Francois, a French citizen, as well as the sale of the petition property by Bonjean Michal Francois to the respondent herein are forbidden under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, for want of prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India. 7.2. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned counsel, further contends that, Bonjean Michal Francois, is disqualified either to enter into a contact of sale for the purchase of the petition property under the sale deed dated 1.10.1992, marked as Ex.A-1, or to sell the same to the respondent herein under the sale deed dated 26.12.1997, as per Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for want of general or special prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India, contemplated under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. As a result, the purchase of the petition property by the respondent from Bonjean Michal Francois is also illegal and therefore, the respondent cannot claim himself to be a lawful title holder of the petition property. To substantiate the above contentions, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel, places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shoba Viswanatha v. D.P.Kingsley, (1996)2 M.L.J. 96 : (1996)1 C.T.C. 620 . 8. I have given careful consideration to the submission of Mr.G.Masilamani learned senior counsel. 9. The vital issue that arises for my consideration in the above revision is whether the revision petitioner, who admittedly continues to be in possession of the petition property in spite of selling the same to Bonjean Michal Francois, a French citizen, under a sale deed dated 1.10.1992, marked as Ex.A-1 for valid consideration, and even after the sale of the petition property by Bonjean Michal Francois, a French citizen, in favour of the respondent herein under a sale deed dated 26.12.1997, is entitled to deny the title of the respondent and refuse payment of rent to the respondent, contending that both Bonjean Michal Francois, a French citizen, as well as the respondent are disqualified for entering into a contract of sale as per Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as the said sale transactions dated 1.10.1992 as well as 26.12.1997 are forbidden in law for want of general or special prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India, as contemplated under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973? 10. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which read as follows: "Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: Restriction on acquisition, holding, etc. of immovable property in India: (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 an immovable property situate in India: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the acquisition or transfer of any such immovable property by way of lease for a period not exceeding five years. (2) Any person or company referred to in Sub-sec.(1) any requiring a special permission under that sub-section for acquiring or holding, or transferring, or disposing of, by sale, mortgage, lease, gift, settlement or otherwise any immovable property situate in India may make an application to the Reserve Bank in such form and containing such particulars as may be specified by the Reserve Bank. (3) On receipt of an application under Sub-sec.(2), the Reserve Bank may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, either grant or refuse to grant the permission applied for: Provided that no permission shall be refused unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in the matter: Provided further that if before the expiry of a period of ninety days from the date on which the application was received by the Reserve Bank, the Reserve Bank does not communicate to the applicant that the permission applied for has been refused, it shall be presumed that the Reserve Bank has granted such permission. Explanation: In computing the period of ninety days for the purposes of the second proviso, the period, if any, taken by the Reserve Bank for giving an opportunity to the applicant for making a representation under the first proviso shall be excluded. (4) Every person and company referred to in Sub-sec.(1) holding at the commencement of this Act any immovable property situate in India shall, before the expiry of a period of ninety days from such commencement or such further period as the Reserve Bank may allow in this behalf, make a declaration in such form as may be specified by the Reserve Bank regarding the immovable property or properties held by such person or company.Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: Who are competent to contract: Every person is competent to contract, who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject". [Italics supplied] 11.1. As per Sec.31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, no person who is not a citizen of India, shall acquire or hold or transfer or dispose of by sale, any immovable property situated in India, without any general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India. [Italics supplied] 11.1. As per Sec.31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, no person who is not a citizen of India, shall acquire or hold or transfer or dispose of by sale, any immovable property situated in India, without any general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, no doubt, bars any acquisition as well as transfer and disposal of immovable property without general or special prior permission of Reserve Bank of India. 11.2. Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, referred to above, also disqualifies a person from contracting, if such contract is forbidden under law. 11.3. If the said statutory bar imposed under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is read into Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, no person who is not a citizen of India, namely in the instant case Bonjean Michal Francois, can acquire or hold or transfer or dispose of immovable property. 11.4. The decision in Shoba Viswanatha v. D.P.Kingsley, (1996)2 M.L.J. 96 : (1996)1 C.T.C. 620 relied upon by Mr.G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel, arises out of a suit C.S. No.239 of 1982 for specific performance of a contract of sale of a house dated 1.12.1981. The said suit was resisted by the defendant there in the ground that the sale of property without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India to a person who is not a citizen of India, would be against the public policy. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court accepting the case of the defendant therein, refused to grant decree for specific performance of the said agreement dated 1.2.1981, in view of Sec.31 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, finding that the said transaction lacks general or special prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India, as one of the two contracting party to the said transaction was not a citizen of India, and held that when enforcement of a contract is against any provision of law, that will amount to enforcement of illegal contract and its enforcement requires the compliance of statutory conditions, failure of which will amount to statutory violation and therefore, the Court which is expected to enforce law, cannot be a party to such decree. 11.5. 11.5. But, in the instant case, admittedly the revision petitioner, had himself sold the petition property to Bonjean Michal Francois, who is not a citizen of India, after receiving sale consideration from him, who in turn sold the property to the respondent and there is absolutely no evidence to hold that both the transactions, namely the sale of petition property by the revision petitioner to one Bonjean Michal Francois under sale deed dated 1.10.1992 or the subsequent sale dated 26.12.1997 by Bonjean Michal Francois to the respondent, lack prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India, as contemplated under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In the absence of any materials in this regard, the revision petitioner, who had the benefit of the said transaction dated 1.10.1992 cannot claim that the said transaction dated 26.12.1997 are opposed to public policy for want of prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India; and that Bonjean Michal Francois, and that the respondent are disqualified to enter into such contract as per Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for want of general and special prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India, as contemplated under Sec.31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In other words, the plea put forth by the revision petitioner is purely based on surmise and illusions and lacks evidence. That apart, not even an averment is made as to the pendency of any complaint or enquiry in this regard against Bonjean Michal Francois, before the competent authorities constituted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In any event, the petitioner, who happened to be a party to the alleged illegal contract, assuming the same is illegal, is not entitled to see benefit of such illegality, claiming a premium on his participation to such illegality. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shoba Viswanatha v. D.P.Kingsley, (1996)2 M.L.J. 96 : (1996)1 C.T.C. 620 , in no way will come to aid the case of the petitioner. It would also be improper either to expect the authorities below or this Court to come to a conclusion, that Bonjean Michal Francois, had failed to obtain general or special prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India, for purchasing the petition property from the petitioner or selling the same to the respondent. 12. It would also be improper either to expect the authorities below or this Court to come to a conclusion, that Bonjean Michal Francois, had failed to obtain general or special prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India, for purchasing the petition property from the petitioner or selling the same to the respondent. 12. For all these records, I do not find any valid justification to interfere with the orders of eviction of the authorities below, as the petitioner himself has admitted the above sales dated 1.10.1992 and 26.12.1999 and that he continues to be in occupation of the petition property even after the execution of the sale deed dated 1.10.1992, for valid consideration, in favour of Bonjean Michal Francois, who, in turn, admittedly, sold the property under sale deed dated 26.12.1997 in favour of the respondent and got changed the patta with reference to the petition property in his favour under Ex.A-15, without paying any rent either to Bonjean Michal Francois or to the respondent, in spite of the receipt of the statutory notice dated 16.4.1998. 13. Hence, the revision fails and therefore dismissed giving two months time to the revision petitioner to vacate the petition premises. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.2908 of 2002 is also dismissed.