https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171049 A lease executed in breach of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not void or unenforceable between landlord and tenant because the Act did not expressly or by necessary implication declare such agreements void. The Court applied the principle that statutory inconsistency alone does not nullify a contract absent clear legislative intent, and relied on Nanakram as the governing authority. It also held that ejectment could still be maintained, because occupation without an allotment order amounts to unauthorised occupation under the Act and the claim is based on that statutory status rather than the defective contract. The Full Bench view to the contrary was set aside. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171049 A lease executed in breach of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not void or unenforceable between landlord and tenant because the Act did not expressly or by necessary implication declare such agreements void. The Court applied the principle that statutory inconsistency alone does not nullify a contract absent clear legislative intent, and relied on Nanakram as the governing authority. It also held that ejectment could still be maintained, because occupation without an allotment order amounts to unauthorised occupation under the Act and the claim is based on that statutory status rather than the defective contract. The Full Bench view to the contrary was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171049