IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the Rent Act specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the Act would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 31-Whether an agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of provisions of UP Rent Act is void (u/ss 10 r/w 23 of Contract Act, 1872)? and whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof? Majority of High Court s full bench holding "No" to both-Appeal against-Whether Majority of High Court was right? (No)-(1996) 3 SCC 83 relied on-Appeal allowed-Case remanded to High Court to decide according to law.
       Held : In the case of Nanakram v. Kundalrai reported in (1986) 3 SCC 83 the question was whether a lease in violation of statutory provisions was void. It was held that in the absence of any mandatory provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act the lease would not be void and the parties would be bound, as between themselves, to observe the conditions of lease. It was held that neither of them could assail the lease in a proceeding between themselves. (Para 7)
       As Nanakram s case was decided by three Hon ble Judges of this Court, it would also be binding on us. We are therefore not going into the question of correctness or otherwise of such a view. We may however mention that the impugned Judgment dated 20th May, 1993, of the Full Bench, is not correct for another reason also. Section 13 of the said Act specifically provides that a person who occupies, without an allotment order in his favour, shall be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such premises. As he is in authorised occupation he is like a trespasser. A suit for ejectment of a trespasser to get back possession from a trespasser could always be filed. Such a Suit would not be on the contract/agreement between the parties and would thus not be hit by principles of public policy also. In this view of the matter the decision of the Full Bench dated 20th May, 1993 cannot be sustained and is set aside. It is held that the law, as laid down in Nanakram s case, still holds the field. Thus unless the statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves. Consequently the Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 dismissing the Writ Petition is set aside. The matter is sent back to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition in accordance with law. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants has been dismissed. This Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 was based on a Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 20th May, 1993. The questions which were referred and considered by the Full Bench were as follows:

1. Whether an agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void?

2. Whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof?

2. The Respondent has remained absent in spite of notice served. This Court therefore requested Mr. R.N. Trivedi, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie. Mr. Trivedi has very ably assisted this Court and the Court expresses its appreciation of the efforts put in by him and the very able assistance rendered by him.

3. At this stage the relevant facts must be briefly stated:

The Appellant is the landlord. In May, 1977 he let out the premises in question to the 3rd Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. The 3rd Respondent paid rent for the months of June, July and August 1977 and thereafter stopped paying any rent. The Appellant therefore gave a notice on 4th August, 1982 and filed a suit for ejectment under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent.

4. By a Judgment dated 30th September, 1986 the trial Court found that the monthly rent was Rs.70/- and that the 3rd Respondent had defaulted in payment of rent. The trial Court also held that the notice given by the Appellant was legal and valid. The trial Court still dismissed the Suit on the ground that the contract of tenancy was entered into in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and therefore the Appellant was not entitled to any relief.

5. The Appellant filed a Revision which was dismissed on 25th April, 1987. The Appellant then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad. As there was a conflict of decision the above mentioned two questions were framed and were referred to a Full Bench. It must be mentioned that before the Full Bench a number of authorities of this Court were cited. These authorities were binding on the Full Bench. As some of these authorities related to the questions under consideration, they should have been conclusive. However, the Full Bench in its majority judgment thought that there were conflicting judgments of this Court. The majority Judgment held that the intransigent discord between the decisions of this Court had lead to an embarrassing situation. The majority Judgment held that in view of the conflicting decisions they could follow the Judgment of this Court which appeared to them to state the law accurately and elaborately. The majority Judgment then held as follows:-

"1. An agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void.

2. The said agreement is unenforceable in law and no decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof."

As stated above, pursuant to the majority Judgment of the Full Bench, the Writ Petition was dismissed. These Appeals impugn both Judgments dated 20th September, 1993 as well as the Judgment dated 20th May, 1993.

6. At this stage the relevant provisions of the said Act need to be set out. Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 31 read as follows:

"11. Prohibition of letting without allotment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 973

IMPORTANT POINTUnless the Rent Act specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the Act would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the Rent Act specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the Act would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves.