Rent control protection limits contractual surrender clauses; a fixed-date vacate agreement was void and could not justify possession.

An agreement by occupants to vacate premises on a fixed future date could not override the protective scheme of the Bombay Rent Act, which permits eviction only on statutory grounds and through the prescribed procedure. Although voluntary surrender by a tenant is not barred, a landlord cannot enforce a contractual term that effectively contracts out of the Act's protection or supports recovery of possession dehors the statute. The agreement was therefore opposed to public policy and hit by section 23 of the Contract Act, rendering it void. Possession could not be claimed on that basis, and the finding against the appellants was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement dated 11 May 1975, by which the occupants undertook to vacate the premises by a fixed date, was void under section 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy and defeating the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether possession could be claimed on that basis.

Analysis: The premises were governed by the Bombay Rent Act, a protective welfare statute limiting eviction to the statutory grounds and procedure under sections 12, 13 and 28. An agreement which merely records that the occupants will vacate on a future date cannot override that statutory scheme or enable recovery of possession dehors the Act. Although voluntary surrender by a tenant is not prohibited, a landlord cannot found a decree for possession on a contractual term that has the effect of contracting out of the Act's protection. The agreement was therefore hit by section 23 of the Contract Act and was void.

Conclusion: The agreement was void and could not be used to claim possession; the finding against the appellants was sustained.

---