Tenancy agreement and unlawful object: breach of a letting order did not by itself make the contract void.

A tenancy agreement made in breach of a District Magistrate's letting order under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is not void merely for that contravention. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act invalidates a contract only where the consideration or object is unlawful or the contract is expressly declared void, and the rent-and-occupation arrangement here was neither unlawful in consideration nor forbidden in object. Breach of the administrative order may attract the Act's penalty or eviction consequences, but it does not by itself make the tenancy agreement opposed to public policy under Section 23. The contract was therefore treated as valid, and the reference was answered against voidness.

---

---

Issues: Whether a contract of tenancy entered into in contravention of a District Magistrate's order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is void under Section 10 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act empowers the District Magistrate to regulate letting by general or special order, and creates penalties and eviction consequences for breach, but does not itself declare a tenancy contract made in breach of such order void. A contract under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is void only if it lacks lawful consideration or lawful object or is otherwise expressly declared void. The consideration for the landlord is rent and the consideration for the tenant is the use of the accommodation, and neither is unlawful. The object of the arrangement is to let and occupy premises for business, which is not per se forbidden by law. An order under Section 7(2) is an administrative order having force of law, but it is not itself the same as statutory law for the purpose of Section 23. Mere contravention of such an order may attract statutory penalty or eviction, but it does not by itself render the tenancy agreement void or opposed to public policy.

Conclusion: The contract of tenancy is not void under Section 10 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the question referred was answered in the negative.

---