1998 (10) TMI 546 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975 under Section 23 of the Contract Act.
2. Status of respondents as licensees or tenants.
3. Allegations of undue influence, coercion, and fraud.
4. Applicability of Section 18 and 19 of the Bombay Rent Act.
5. Public policy considerations under the Bombay Rent Act.
6. Jurisdiction and statutory grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Agreement Dated 11th May, 1975 Under Section 23 of the Contract Act:
The primary question was whether the agreement dated 11th May, 1975, was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The agreement required the respondents to vacate the premises by the end of February 1976. Both lower courts found the agreement void, holding that it defeated the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and was against public policy.

2. Status of Respondents as Licensees or Tenants:
It was established by the Appellate Court that the respondents were initially licensees since 1968, paying Rs. 50/- per month. They became tenants on 1st February 1973 under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. This change in status was crucial in determining their rights and the applicability of the Rent Act.

3. Allegations of Undue Influence, Coercion, and Fraud:
The respondents claimed the agreement was a result of undue influence, coercion, and fraud. However, the Appellate Court found these allegations vague and unsupported by specific details. The Court noted that no process was issued in the alleged criminal complaint, and the plea was deemed baseless.

4. Applicability of Section 18 and 19 of the Bombay Rent Act:
The appellants argued that tenants could surrender their rights voluntarily and that Sections 18 and 19 of the Bombay Rent Act did not prohibit such agreements. Section 18 deals with unlawful charges by landlords, and Section 19 with charges by tenants relinquishing tenancy. The Court, however, found that these sections did not support the appellants' claim for possession based on the agreement.

5. Public Policy Considerations Under the Bombay Rent Act:
The Court emphasized that the Bombay Rent Act was enacted to protect tenants from eviction without following statutory procedures. The agreement dated 11th May, 1975, if upheld, would undermine this protection and defeat the Act's purpose. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments, including A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 741 and [1975]1SCR575, which held that agreements contravening statutory protections for tenants are against public policy and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

6. Jurisdiction and Statutory Grounds for Eviction Under the Bombay Rent Act:
The Court reiterated that eviction must be based on statutory grounds specified in Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. The agreement could not confer jurisdiction on the Rent Court to order eviction outside these statutory grounds. The Court referenced the Apex Court's judgment in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 741, which stated that no decree for possession could be passed on a ground not mentioned in the Act, even by consent of the parties.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the agreement dated 11th May, 1975, was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as it was against public policy and defeated the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondents were also dismissed. There was no order as to costs.