9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landlord in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in which it was held that if a person is already in occupation of any house of his own in the town, he could not file an application under clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order and also in view of other technical difficulties, he withdrew his initial application. Thereafter this fresh application was filed. When the present proceedings were initiated, petitioner Shankarlal Rathi filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act relying upon an arbitration clause in the lease-deed dated 4th May 1946. The relevant clause in the lease-deed reads as under: It is also agreed between the parties that in case any dispute arises in connection with this lease either as regards the construction of the premises or their maintenance or regarding payment of rent or regarding any other matter of dispute whatsoever between the parties, then in that case the same shall be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, each party being entitled to name one. The two arbitrators shall before proceeding to enter upon arbitration, name an Umpire and in case the two arbitrators differ, then the point of difference between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of special Legislation enacted for the protection of tenants, on account of the conditions which the World War II had created, there was great demand for accommodation. The low level of construction activities in the last 2 decades and the absence of proper maintenance and repairs also contributed to the inadequacy of residential accommodation. In those days the landlords were exploiting the situation to their advantage. Not only the rent racketing was in vogue, but several malpractices were employed to enhance the rent and evict the tenants, if they are not emendable to their pressure. In order to check such exploitation and to bring the situation under control, the then Government of Control Provinces and Berar issued Accommodation order in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946. This Order was known as C. P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act clearly indicates that it was enacted to provide for regulating the letting and sub-letting of the accommodation in the Central Provinces and Berar. The whole Legislation was contemplated for making a provision for better control o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have waived the benefit of the provisions. The Supreme Court ultimately held that an agreement in the lease-deed providing that the parties will never claim the benefit of the Rent Control Order and that the provisions of the same will not be applicable to the lease-deed, is illegal in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, being against the public policy. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, [1974]2SCR544 . After making a reference to the provisions of Delhi Rent Act in paras. 16, 17 and 18 the Supreme Court observed as under: It will thus be seen that the Delhi Rent Act and the Madras Rent Act expressly forbid the Rent Court or the Tribunal from passing a decree or order of eviction on a ground which is not any of the grounds mentioned in the relevant sections of these statutes. Nevertheless, such a prohibitory mandate to the Rent Court that it shall not travel beyond the statutory grounds mentioned in Sections 12 and 13, and to the parties that they shall not contract out of those statutory grounds is inherent in the public policy built into the statute (Bombay Rent Act). In Rashiklal Chaunilal's case (1971) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of Rent Controller. Such an agreement will be unlawful and against the public policy behind the Act and the Rent Control Order is to vest such a power or control in the Rent Controller for the benefit of general public. Moreover an appeal lies against the order of the Rent Controller to the Collector under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the clause in the agreement referred to above, executed in the year 1946, even if it is assumed that also governed the present controversy, is wholly inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Control Order. The inconsistency is writ large if the relevant provisions of the Rent Control Order are construed and read in their proper perspective. As observed by this Court in Ratilal v. Welji, AIR1975Bom218 it is not open for the parties to waive the said right conferred upon the tenant by the Rent Control Legislation. Such contracted by the Rent Control Order, was prohibited by necessary implication and it was not open for the parties to give a bye to the said provisions of the Rent Control Order. If it is held by virtue of the aforestated clause in the lease agreement the controversy involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
