Statutory prohibition on sub-letting upheld; contractual permission void and landlord could rely on the breach for eviction.

Section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 was treated as an absolute statutory prohibition on sub-letting, overriding contrary contractual terms; any agreement authorising sub-letting was therefore void and unenforceable as inconsistent with public policy and section 23 of the Contract Act. Read with section 13(1)(e), that prohibition entitled the landlord to recover possession where sub-letting occurred in breach of the Act, because the eviction claim enforced the statutory consequence, not the illegal bargain itself. The tenant's plea of waiver also failed, since a mandatory public-law prohibition could not be waived to validate the illegality, and the tenant could not rely on in pari delicto to defeat the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 prohibited sub-letting and rendered any agreement permitting sub-letting unenforceable; (ii) whether the landlord could recover possession under section 13(1)(e) on the ground of sub-letting notwithstanding the tenant's contractual plea; (iii) whether the landlord had waived the statutory bar against sub-letting or was otherwise precluded from relying on the tenant's illegality.

Issue (i): Whether section 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 prohibited sub-letting and rendered any agreement permitting sub-letting unenforceable.

Analysis: The prohibition in section 15 was treated as absolute. The non obstante clause was read as overriding any contrary law, and the section was held to make sub-letting unlawful after the Act came into force. An agreement authorising what the statute forbade could not be enforced, because such enforcement would conflict with section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and would give effect to an illegality.

Conclusion: The statutory prohibition prevailed, and any contract permitting sub-letting was void and unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord could recover possession under section 13(1)(e) on the ground of sub-letting notwithstanding the tenant's contractual plea.

Analysis: Section 13(1)(e) was read together with section 15, because it expressly made the landlord's right to recover possession subject to the latter provision. Since sub-letting in breach of section 15 was unlawful, the landlord was entitled to invoke the statutory ground for eviction. The suit was not an attempt to enforce the sub-letting agreement itself, but to enforce the statutory consequence attached to its breach.

Conclusion: The landlord was entitled to recover possession under section 13(1)(e) on account of sub-letting.

Issue (iii): Whether the landlord had waived the statutory bar against sub-letting or was otherwise precluded from relying on the tenant's illegality.

Analysis: The plea of waiver was not a pure question of law and had not been raised or decided below. In any event, a statutory prohibition enacted on grounds of public policy could not be waived so as to validate an illegal arrangement. Nor could the maxim in pari delicto assist the tenant, because the landlord was not asking the Court to enforce the illegal bargain, but to apply the statutory remedy for breach of a mandatory prohibition.

Conclusion: The plea of waiver failed, and the tenant could not rely on illegality to defeat the landlord's statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar on sub-letting was upheld, the contractual permission to sub-let was treated as void, and the decree for ejectment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly prohibits sub-letting and attaches eviction as a consequence, any agreement contrary to that prohibition is void and cannot be used to defeat the statutory remedy, nor can such illegality be waived to validate the forbidden arrangement.

---