Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to a tenancy where the tenant, originally in an old building, shifted to new premises owned by the respondent landlord. The tenant had sub-tenants in the old premises, and the landlord, through a letter dated June 7, 1948, explicitly permitted the tenant to keep sub-tenants in the new premises in the same manner. However, the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, contained Section 15, which prohibited sub-letting, and Section 13(1)(e), which gave the landlord the right to evict a tenant on the ground of sub-letting. On April 20, 1949, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment based on this ground. The tenant raised three defences: first, that Section 15 only applied to other laws and not to contracts, making the agreement valid; second, that both parties were in pari delicto (equal fault) and thus the landlord could not succeed; third, that the right to evict was a personal benefit that the landlord had waived by allowing the sub-letting. The Supreme Court rejected all defences. It held that the non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law' in Section 15 was wide enough to include contracts, making any such agreement void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The prohibition was based on public policy and intended to protect the entire body of tenants, not merely to confer a personal benefit on the landlord. Therefore, the doctrine of pari delicto did not apply, and the right could not be waived. The Court concluded that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant, and the tenant's appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Non-obstante clause - The clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law' in Section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, encompasses contracts and renders any agreement permitting sub-letting void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Held that the sub-letting permitted by the agreement was illegal and the landlord could sue for ejectment under Section 13(1)(e). B) Law of Contracts - Pari delicto doctrine - Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The doctrine of in pari delicto does not apply where the statute prohibits the act for the protection of a class and the parties are not equally at fault - Held that the tenant could not resist eviction on the ground that the landlord was a party to the agreement allowing sub-letting. C) Waiver of Statutory Right - Public policy - Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 15 - The right to evict for unlawful sub-letting is not a mere personal benefit that the landlord can waive, as the prohibition is based on public policy intended to protect all tenants - Held that the landlord had not waived his right to evict.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-obstante clause in Section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, applies to contracts permitting sub-letting; whether the landlord, being a party to such agreement, can evict the tenant under Section 13(1)(e); and whether the right to evict for sub-letting can be waived.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's appeal and held that the non-obstante clause in Section 15 applies to contracts, the agreement allowing sub-letting was void and unenforceable, the doctrine of pari delicto did not apply, and the right to evict could not be waived. The landlord was entitled to evict the tenant for unlawful sub-letting.
Law Points
- non-obstante clause overrides contracts
- agreement contrary to statutory prohibition void under Section 23 Indian Contract Act
- pari delicto doctrine not applicable
- waiver of statutory prohibition invalid
- prohibition against sub-letting is for public benefit
