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: Issue 1: Void Nature of the Lease Agreement The court examined whether an agreement of lease in contravention of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act") is void. The essential components of a valid contract as per Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were considered, focusing on the lawfulness of the object and the absence of express declaration rendering the agreement void. The court analyzed Section 23 of the Contract Act, which states that the object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law, defeats the provisions of any law, is fraudulent, involves injury to another's person or property, or is opposed to public policy. The court concluded that any agreement violating these conditions is void. Sections 11, 13, and 17 of the new Act were scrutinized. Section 11 prohibits letting without an allotment order, while Section 13 restricts occupation without such an order. Section 17 outlines the conditions for making an allotment order. The court held that these sections collectively forbid the letting or occupation of a building without an allotment/release order, rendering any such agreement void. The court referenced several precedents, including Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co., Shrikrishna Khanna v. Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, and Abdul Hameed v. Md. Ishaq, which supported the view that agreements contravening statutory provisions are void. Issue 2: Enforceability and Decree for Ejectment The court addressed whether such a void agreement is enforceable and whether a decree for ejectment can be passed based on it. It was established that void agreements have no legal force and cannot create enforceable relationships, rights, or liabilities. The court referred to the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which held that neither a landlord can let out premises without an allotment order, nor can anyone occupy it. The court also cited Naveen Chandra Sharma v. 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which affirmed that letting or occupation without an allotment order is forbidden by law and opposed to public policy. The court considered the argument that an agreement of lease in contravention of the new Act is not void but unenforceable. However, it was concluded that such agreements are not only void but also unenforceable, as they contravene statutory provisions designed to regulate letting and occupation for public benefit. Separate Judgments: - D.S. Sinha, J. delivered the primary judgment, concluding that the agreement of lease is void and unenforceable. - Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. concurred with the opinion of D.S. Sinha, J. - S.R. Singh, J. provided additional analysis, reaffirming the void nature of the lease agreement and its unenforceability. He emphasized that the landlord's right to recover possession and claim damages for use and occupation is enforceable, but not the recovery of rent under a void lease. Conclusion: 1. An agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention 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. However, the landlord may recover possession and claim damages for use and occupation.
|
