Mandatory statutory formalities for property transfer can defeat tenancy claims despite payment and receipt of rent.

A valid landlord-tenant relationship could not arise where a statutory body failed to comply with mandatory municipal requirements for written execution and attestation of contracts and transfers. The rent control law's definitions of landlord, premises and tenant still presupposed a legally effective letting, and its overriding clause did not displace the municipal statute in the absence of real inconsistency. Receipt of rent did not by itself prove tenancy, no estoppel could operate against the statutory prohibition, and part performance was unavailable. On that basis, the applicants were not tenants within the Act and their applications for standard rent were incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were tenants within the meaning of the rent control law so as to maintain applications for fixation of standard rent, and whether non-compliance with the municipal statute governing contracts and transfers prevented creation of the landlord-tenant relationship.

Analysis: The definitions of landlord, premises and tenant under the rent control law presupposed a relationship created by a valid transfer of interest in immovable property. The Act did not dispense with the need for a legally effective letting, and its overriding clause did not displace the municipal statute where there was no real inconsistency. The municipal provisions requiring written execution and attestation for contracts and transfers by the Committee were mandatory, not directory. Since those requirements were not satisfied, the transaction could not bind the Committee or create a valid leasehold interest. The receipt of rent did not by itself establish tenancy, and there could be no estoppel against a statutory prohibition. The doctrine of part performance was also inapplicable.

Conclusion: The applicants were not tenants within the meaning of the Act, the applications for standard rent were incompetent, and the dismissal by the High Court was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory body can transfer property only in the manner prescribed by the governing statute, non-compliance with those mandatory formalities prevents the creation of a legally enforceable tenancy or landlord-tenant relationship, notwithstanding payment and receipt described as rent.

---