Case Note & Summary
This civil appeal by special leave arose from a dispute between a tenant and a landlord over the applicability of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to a shop in Mathura after its reconstruction. The tenant had occupied the shop for a long time at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.37. The landlord wanted to construct rooms on the upper storey for his own residence, which required the tenant to vacate temporarily. On June 4, 1962, the parties entered into an agreement. The tenant vacated the shop, the landlord agreed to complete construction within thirty days, and the tenant was to resume possession at the same rent. Clause 3 of the agreement provided that all sections of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act would fully apply to the reconstructed building, and the landlord would not claim the benefit of exemption for property built after January 1, 1951. After construction was completed, the tenant resumed possession and offered rent, but the landlord refused to accept it. The tenant then deposited rent due from April 1, 1962 to July 31, 1963 in court under Section 7-C of the Act. The landlord served a notice dated April 20, 1963 under the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the tenant was entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Act. The District Judge allowed the landlord's appeal and decreed the suit, holding that Section 1-A exempted the newly constructed building from the Act and that the agreement was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the District Judge's decision. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issues were whether a landlord could waive the benefit of Section 1-A by an agreement with the tenant, and whether such an agreement was void under Section 23 as defeating the provisions of law. The tenant argued that the agreement was valid and constituted a lawful waiver of a private statutory benefit, involving no public policy. The landlord argued that Section 1-A applied and that the agreement's object was to defeat the provision of law, making it void. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of the Act, noting that it was enacted to protect tenants from unreasonable eviction and rent demands, but that Section 1-A was inserted to encourage new construction by exempting post-1951 buildings from the Act's stringent provisions. The Court held that Section 1-A conferred a benefit on owners of new buildings and contained no prohibition against contracting out. Relying on the general principle that a person may waive the advantage of a law made solely for his private benefit, the Court held that no question of public policy was involved in waiving this exemption. The Court also clarified that an agreement is not void under Section 23 unless its performance necessarily entails the transgression of law. Approving the view in Neminath Appayya Hanumannavar v. Jamboorao Satappa Kocheri and referring to Vita Food Products Incorporated v. Unus Co. Ltd., the Court concluded that the performance of the agreement in the present case did not involve any illegal act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the ejectment suit, awarding costs to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Waiver of Statutory Benefits - A person may waive advantage of a law made solely for his private benefit if no public right or public policy is infringed - U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Section 1-A; Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23 - The Court applied the maxim cuilibet licet renuntiare juri pro se introducto and held that Section 1-A conferred a benefit on owners of post-1951 buildings which could be waived because no public policy was involved. Held that the agreement to apply all sections of the Act was valid and not contrary to public policy (Paras not mentioned). B) Rent Control Legislation - Exemption for New Buildings - Section 1-A is a benefit for owners of buildings constructed after January 1, 1951 and contains no prohibition against contracting out - U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Section 1-A - The landlord agreed that all sections of the Act would apply despite the new construction, and the Court held this was a permissible waiver of the statutory exemption. Held that the landlord could not later rely on Section 1-A to evict the tenant (Paras not mentioned). C) Contract Law - Void Agreements - An agreement is not void under Section 23 unless its performance necessarily entails transgression of law - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23 - The Court approved the view that the phrase "if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law" refers to performance that necessarily involves disobedience of law; no such illegality existed here. Held that the agreement's object was lawful and not void (Paras not mentioned). D) Statutory Interpretation - Contracting Out of Statute - Absent express prohibition, a person may contract out of a statute unless contrary to public policy - General principles of statutory interpretation - Citing Halsbury's Laws of England and Maxwell, the Court observed that statutory conditions may be waived by agreement unless prohibited; the rent control exemption did not implicate public policy. Held that the landlord's waiver was valid (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a landlord can waive the benefit of Section 1-A of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 by an agreement with the tenant, and whether such agreement is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as defeating the provisions of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, and restored the decree of the trial court (Munsif) dismissing the landlord's ejectment suit. The appellant tenant was held entitled to the protection of Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, and was awarded costs in the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- A person can waive advantage of a law made solely for his private benefit if no public policy infringed
- Section 1-A U.P. Rent Act confers benefit on owners of post-1951 buildings
- no prohibition against contracting out of Section 1-A
- agreement to apply all sections of Rent Act is valid
- Section 23 Contract Act void only if performance necessarily entails transgression of law
- no public policy involved in waiving exemption for new buildings
