Lease in breach of rent-control law not void by itself; unauthorised occupation can still support ejectment.

A lease executed in breach of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not void or unenforceable between landlord and tenant because the Act did not expressly or by necessary implication declare such agreements void. The Court applied the principle that statutory inconsistency alone does not nullify a contract absent clear legislative intent, and relied on Nanakram as the governing authority. It also held that ejectment could still be maintained, because occupation without an allotment order amounts to unauthorised occupation under the Act and the claim is based on that statutory status rather than the defective contract. The Full Bench view to the contrary was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement of lease made in contravention of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void and unenforceable between landlord and tenant. (ii) Whether a decree for ejectment can be passed on the basis of such an agreement.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement of lease made in contravention of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void and unenforceable between landlord and tenant.

Analysis: The controlling principle applied was that a contract inconsistent with a statute does not become void merely because it is contrary to a statutory scheme, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication makes it void. The earlier binding decision in Nanakram was treated as laying down the governing law. The later authorities relied upon by the Full Bench were held not to conflict with that principle. The Court also noted that the Act itself contained a penal and regulatory framework and that the absence of an express statutory declaration of voidness was material.

Conclusion: The lease agreement was not void merely because it was entered into in contravention of the Act, and it remained enforceable inter se the parties.

Issue (ii): Whether a decree for ejectment can be passed on the basis of such an agreement.

Analysis: The Court held that a person occupying premises without an allotment order is treated as an unauthorised occupant under the Act, and such occupation is akin to trespass. A suit for ejectment in such a case is founded on the statutory status of unauthorised occupation and not merely on the contractual arrangement. Accordingly, the relief of ejectment was held to be legally maintainable notwithstanding the contractual illegality alleged by the tenant.

Conclusion: A decree for ejectment could be passed and the landlord's ejectment claim was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench view that the lease was void and incapable of supporting ejectment was set aside, the writ petition dismissal was overturned, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract made in breach of a regulatory statute is not void or unenforceable between the parties unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication so provides, and unauthorized occupation under the statute may found a maintainable ejectment action.

---