Public policy in rent control bars contractual waiver of eviction protection and preserves mandatory permission requirements.

The revisional authority under the U. P. rent-control statute may consider hardship, long possession and the practical effect of eviction when deciding whether eviction is inexpedient under the proviso to Section 7-A, and such broad discretion is not confined to narrow or exhaustive criteria. The contractual attempt to waive the tenant's protection under Section 3(1) was ineffective because that provision reflects a public policy against eviction without the prescribed permission; an agreement designed to defeat it is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The rent-control protection therefore remained operative, and eviction could not proceed without compliance with the statutory permission requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government, while exercising revisional power under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, acted within jurisdiction and without error of law in declining eviction under the proviso to Section 7-A. (ii) Whether a tenant could, by contract, waive the protection of Section 3(1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, so as to permit a suit for eviction without the District Magistrate's permission.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government, while exercising revisional power under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, acted within jurisdiction and without error of law in declining eviction under the proviso to Section 7-A.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 7-A is framed in broad terms and entrusts wide discretion to the District Magistrate and, in revision, to the State Government. The circumstances relevant to whether eviction would be inexpedient are not exhaustively defined, and the authority may consider factors bearing on hardship and the practical consequences of eviction. The State Government relied on the respondent's long possession, operation of a cinema under licence, and the inference that lawful occupation had been accepted when the licence was granted. Those considerations were not irrelevant, and the prior release order in favour of the appellants did not bar consideration of the respondent's claim of inexpediency at the eviction stage.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not vitiated by jurisdictional error or error of law, and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant could, by contract, waive the protection of Section 3(1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, so as to permit a suit for eviction without the District Magistrate's permission.

Analysis: Section 3(1) is prohibitory in form and embodies a policy of protecting tenants from eviction without scrutiny by the prescribed authority. The statutory purpose was not merely to confer a private benefit, but to advance a broader public policy of shielding a weaker class and regulating eviction on reasonable grounds. An agreement whose object is to defeat the operation of such a provision is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contractual clause purporting to exclude the Act therefore could not nullify the statutory protection, and the respondent remained entitled to rely on the want of permission.

Conclusion: The protection under Section 3(1) could not be waived by contract, and the suit was not maintainable without the District Magistrate's permission.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both questions: the revisional eviction order was upheld, and the contractual attempt to contract out of the rent-control bar was ineffective, leaving the eviction suit incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory protection enacted not merely for private benefit but as a matter of public policy cannot be waived by private agreement, and an eviction order or suit must conform to the mandatory conditions imposed by the rent-control statute.

---