9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
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. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Lease Agreement in Contravention of the Act: The Supreme Court examined whether a lease agreement made in contravention of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) is void. The trial court initially dismissed the suit for ejectment on the grounds that the tenancy contract was in violation of the Act. This decision was upheld by the revisional court and later by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which concluded that such agreements are void and unenforceable. The Full Bench referenced various authorities, including the case of Nanakram v. Kundalrai, which held that in the absence of a mandatory provision obliging eviction, a lease in violation of statutory provisions is not void. However, the Full Bench chose not to follow this binding precedent, citing perceived conflicts with other Supreme Court decisions. 2. Enforceability of Lease Agreement and Ejectment Decree: The Supreme Court scrutinized the Full Bench's decision, noting that the Full Bench incorrectly disregarded the binding precedent set by Nanakram's case. The Court emphasized that judicial discipline and propriety required adherence to binding authorities unless there is a clear conflict. Upon examining the cited conflicting cases-Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co., Shrikrishna Khanna v. A.D.M., Kanpur, and Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan-the Supreme Court found no actual conflict with Nanakram's case. Each of these cases dealt with different statutory contexts and did not contradict the principle that a lease agreement, even if contrary to statutory provisions, remains binding between the parties unless the statute explicitly voids such contracts. Provisions of the Act: The Court reviewed relevant sections of the Act, including Sections 11, 12, 13, 17, and 31, which regulate the letting, deemed vacancy, and penalties for contraventions. Section 13 specifically states that unauthorized occupants without an allotment order are deemed unauthorized occupants, akin to trespassers, thus allowing landlords to file suits for ejectment independent of the lease contract. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Full Bench's judgment, reaffirming the principle from Nanakram's case that unless a statute explicitly voids a contract, it remains enforceable between the parties. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the writ petition was also set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.
|
