1959 (2) TMI 29 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms order on unlawful sub-letting, emphasizes void agreements & unenforceable waivers.

WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI Versus RATILAL BHAGWANDAS & CO.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the order of ejectment due to unlawful sub-letting under Section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.2. Legality of sub-letting under the lease agreement.3. Non-payment of rent.4. Waiver of statutory rights by the landlord.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947:The appellant contended that Sections 13(1)(e) and 15 of the Act did not apply as there was no new tenancy after the Act came into force. However, the courts below found that the tenancy by the letter dated June 7, 1948, was a new tenancy and not a continuation of the old one. The previous tenancy of 'Fida Ali Villa' ended when the appellant vacated those premises and entered into a new lease agreement. The court held that Section 15 of the Act prohibits sub-letting and makes it unlawful for a tenant to assign or transfer his interest in the premises let to him. This prohibition applies to contracts as well, making any agreement contrary to Section 15 unenforceable. The court concluded that Sections 13(1)(e) and 15 must be read together, and the appellant's agreement to sub-let was void due to the statutory prohibition.2. Legality of Sub-letting under the Lease Agreement:The appellant argued that under the lease agreement, he had the right to sub-let the premises. The court found that such an agreement was void because it contravened Section 15 of the Act, which is based on public policy. The court emphasized that an agreement that seeks to waive an illegality is void and cannot be enforced. The court also noted that the respondent's suit for ejectment was not to enforce the illegal agreement but to enforce the statutory right of eviction due to the appellant's contravention of Section 15.3. Non-payment of Rent:The respondent initially brought the suit for ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The appellant deposited the arrears of rent in court, and the trial court passed a decree for Rs. 445 on account of rent remaining due. However, the main issue that led to the eviction order was the unlawful sub-letting, not the non-payment of rent.4. Waiver of Statutory Rights by the Landlord:The appellant raised the plea of waiver for the first time in the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent had waived his right regarding the prohibition against sub-tenancy by allowing the sub-letting in the lease agreement. The court held that waiver is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be raised at this stage of proceedings. Moreover, even if the plea of waiver was considered, it would be unenforceable as it would result in enforcing an illegal agreement and contravening the statutory provisions of Section 15. The court cited precedents to support the principle that agreements which seek to waive an illegality are void on grounds of public policy.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, confirming the order of ejectment. The court found that the sub-letting was unlawful under Section 15 of the Act, and any agreement allowing sub-letting was void. The plea of waiver was not permissible as it would enforce an illegal agreement. The appeal was dismissed with costs.