TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty was purchased by the appellants on 15th May, 1975. They issued notice to the respondents on 1st March, 1976 to give back the possession to them in view of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975. As the respondents did not, the appellants filed the suit claiming possession of those two rooms and damages for unauthorised use and occupation from March, 1976. It was contended that in view of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975 they are bound to vacate and are trespassers after 1-3-1976. It was contended by the respondents, inter alia, that the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 was hit by the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act as it is against public policy and having the effect of defeating the provisions of law, it is void and the suit filed by the appellants on that basis is liable to be dismissed. It has been found by both the courts below that the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 was void and hence the appellants cannot get possession from the respondents. 3. It is first to be noted that it was found by the Appellate Court that respondents were licensees since 1968 on payment of Rs. 50/- per month. They became tenants of the same on 1-2-1973 in view of section 15A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... This arrangement is made only for the purpose of convenience and at our request neither No. 1 or any one of us has got tenancy in respect of the said two room. Excepting the said two rooms, either No. 1 or any one out of us is concerned with the other open land or any part of it in any way and we will not make use of it. By the end of February 1976, No. 1 out of us and we will vacate the premises i.e. the above mentioned two rooms without any complaint and hand over the possession to No. 4 & 5 from amongst you. We will not put forth any complaint." The appellants are contending that the respondents have unequivocally agreed to vacate the premises by the end of February, 1976. By the said agreement they were allowed to stay which was by way of concession and hence after that date they were trespassers and cannot claim the protection of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. 7. The learned Counsel in support of this contention relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 97 V. Narasimharaju v. V.V. Gurumurthy Raju and others. It was a case where the question arose whether the agreement in respect of arbitration was void as the consideration for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [1975]1SCR575 Murlidhar Aggarwal and others v. Ram Agyan Singh, while considering from tenant's angle. I shall be making a reference to it later on. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants is right in pointing out that the learned Judge has erroneously relied upon the principles of tenancy by holding over under section 116 of the T.P. Act, but that is not going to help the appellants in getting possession of the suit premises. But that makes no difference. 10. The Bombay Rent Act, was introduced clearly with the object of protecting the eviction of tenants by the landlord without following the procedure and the provisions of the said Act. Sections 12 and 13 thereof lay down various provisions under which the landlord can secure possession of the tenanted premises from the tenant. Section 28 deals with the jurisdiction of the courts in that respect. If the said agreement dated 11th May, 1975 is held to be valid, then the protection which is afforded to a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, would be taken away and the eviction would be clearly de hors the provisions thereof. Therefore, merely because a tenant agrees that he shall stay in the premises unti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Rent Act under this Act is not competent to pass a decree for possession either invitum or with the consent of the parties on a ground which is de hors the Act or ultra vires the Act. The existence of one of the statutory grounds mentioned in sections 12 and 13 is a sine qua nan to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Court under those provisions. Even parties cannot by their consent confer such jurisdiction on the Rent Court to do something which, according to the legislative mandate, it could not do." (underlining mine) Similarly, the Apex Court in [1975]1SCR575 considered its own judgment in Lachoo Mal's case (cited supra). The matter was for consideration before the Apex Court from the tenant's angle under the provisions of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 3 thereof provided that no suit can be filed by the landlord without the permission obtained under the said provision. In the said case, agreement to lease pro vided that party shall not claim benefit of the said Act and the provisions of the said Act, will be inapplicable to the said lease. In that con....