JUDGMENT - P.S. PATANKAR, J.:---The question involved in this second appeal is whether the agreement dated 11th May, 1975 can be said to be void in view of section 23 of the Contract Act.

2. The premises are two rooms situated at Alibag. They are covered by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). They were owned by one Laxmibai Rajaram Velhal etc. and the respondents were staying in those rooms since 1968 as licensees. On 11th May, 1975, an agreement took place between the owners of the property i.e. the appellants herein and the respondents in respect of those two rooms under which it was agreed that they shall stay in the premises till the end of February, 1976 free and vacate thereafter. This property was purchased by the appellants on 15th May, 1975. They issued notice to the respondents on 1st March, 1976 to give back the possession to them in view of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975. As the respondents did not, the appellants filed the suit claiming possession of those two rooms and damages for unauthorised use and occupation from March, 1976. It was contended that in view of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975 they are bound to vacate and are trespassers after 1-3-1976. It was contended by the respondents, inter alia, that the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 was hit by the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act as it is against public policy and having the effect of defeating the provisions of law, it is void and the suit filed by the appellants on that basis is liable to be dismissed. It has been found by both the courts below that the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 was void and hence the appellants cannot get possession from the respondents.

3. It is first to be noted that it was found by the Appellate Court that respondents were licensees since 1968 on payment of Rs. 50/- per month. They became tenants of the same on 1-2-1973 in view of section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act. Further, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the said agreement was entered into because of undue influence, coercion and fraud came to be negatived holding that it was without giving any details.

4. I must state at the outset that the learned Counsel for the respondents attempted to impeach the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 also on the ground that it was brought into existence because of undue influence, coercion and fraud committed by the appellants by filing cross objections. He has taken me through the written statement. However, I find that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that no details of the said allegations of undue influence, coercion and fraud are given in the written statement is right. It was a general and vague plea devoid of particulars of each. The whole attempt was to show that a criminal prosecution was launched by Velhals against them and Panchnama was made. Therefore, they entered into such an agreement. However, admittedly, no process was issued in the said complaint and the plea of undue influence, fraud or coercion was vague and baseless. The Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in this respect and rightly rejected this contention. There is no merit in the cross objections.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that a tenant is free to surrender his rights and there is no prohibition under the Bombay Rent Act. He invited my attention to sections 18 and 19 of the Bombay Rent Act and contended that the prohibition under section 18 is regarding recovery of unlawful charges by landlord in violation and under section 19 for recovering any charges by the tenant from landlord while relinquishing the tenancy of the premises. Hence, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that the agreement was against public policy or having the effect of defeating the provisions of law is not correct. This is countered by the learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document