1974 (4) TMI 109 - HC - Indian Laws

Void Private Tenancy Agreements: Illegal Occupation & Eviction Remedies

Abdul Hameed Versus Mohd. Ishaq

The court held that private tenancy agreements made in contravention of a general order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of private tenancy agreements in contravention of a general order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.2. Validity of the occupation of accommodation by a tenant under a private agreement made in violation of a general order.3. District Magistrate's authority to enforce an allotment order and evict a tenant under Section 7-A of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Private Tenancy Agreements:The court examined whether a private tenancy agreement made in contravention of a general order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is valid. The court noted that the Full Bench in Udhoo Dass v. Prem Prakash had previously held that such agreements were not void. However, the current judgment respectfully differed from this view, stating that a general order issued by the District Magistrate under Section 7(2) has the force of law. Consequently, any private agreement of tenancy made in violation of such a general order is forbidden by law and is therefore void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The court emphasized that subordinate legislation, such as a general order, constitutes 'law' within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act.2. Validity of the Occupation of Accommodation:The court discussed whether the occupation of accommodation by a tenant under a private agreement made in violation of a general order is legal. It concluded that such occupation is illegal and the tenant's possession is that of a trespasser. The accommodation, in legal terms, is deemed vacant, allowing the District Magistrate to pass a special order under Section 7(2) for its allotment. The court highlighted that allowing private agreements in contravention of general orders would defeat the purpose of the Act, which aims to control rent and prevent arbitrary eviction.3. Authority of the District Magistrate to Enforce Allotment Orders:The court analyzed whether the District Magistrate can enforce an allotment order and evict a tenant under Section 7-A of the Act. The judgment clarified that the District Magistrate has the authority to take action under Section 7-A to evict a tenant who occupies accommodation in contravention of a general order and to enforce an allotment order, regardless of whether the allotment order was passed before or after the unauthorized occupation. The court stated that criminal action under Section 8 and civil action under Section 7-A are complementary remedies provided by the Act to rectify breaches of general or special orders issued by the District Magistrate.Conclusion:The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that a person to whom accommodation has been let out by the landlord in contravention of a general order under Section 7(2) of the Act is liable to be proceeded against under Section 7-A at the instance of the person in whose favor an allotment order has been passed by the District Magistrate, even if the allotment order was passed subsequent to the unauthorized letting and occupation.