MOHD. SALIMUDDIN versus MISRI LAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 12-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
622 
MOHD, SALIMUDDIN 
. 
- -
v. 
MISRI LAL AND ANOTHER 
MARCH 12, 1986 
[E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M. P. THAKKAR, J J. ] 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act :>-
1947, s.3 - Loan advanced by tenant in violation of Act -
Tenant - Whether entl.tled to claim adjustment of loan aioount 
against rent accrued subsequently. 
Warns & Phrases - Doctrine of pari delicto - Meaning and 
applicability of. 
The appellant-t:enant had advanced a sum of Rs.2,000 to 
the landlord in order to secilre the tenancy under an agreement , 
D 
which provided that loan aioount was to be adjusted against the 
rent which accrued subsequently. The respondent-landlord filed 
a suit against the appellant-t:enant for eviction on the ground 
of arrears of rent, The lower appellate court dismissed the 
suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent since 
the amount advanced by the tenant was sufficient to cover the 
E 
landlord's claim of arrears. But, the High Court in appeal by 
the respondent-landlord set aside the judgment of the lower 
appellate court holding that the loan advanced by the tenant 
·was in violation of the prohLbition contained in s. 3 of the 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act and i 
therefore he was in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted. 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : l.(i) The tenant was not in arrears of rent, The 
judgment and decree passed by the High Court are set aside and 
the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are 
restored. (626 G] 
I. 
l(ii) A greater judicial sin than the sin of treating ' 
the 'oppressor' and the 'oppressed' on a par, or that of 
rewarding the oppressor and punishing the oppressed, whilst 
\ ... 
""" 
. 
' .. 
-i 
"" 
MOHD. SALIMUDDI:N v. MIS RI LAL 
623 
·t.dministering the law designed to protect the oppressed cannot 
be conceived. The Court would be guilty of committing this sin 
if it upholds the view that the tenant who advances a loan to 
the landlord in order to secure the tenancy (in violation of 
the prohibition to do so embodied in the statute enacted for 
his benefit) is in pari delicto. [ 624 B) 
In the instant case, the parties to the contract were 
--Unequal. It was the landlord, who was in the position of an 
oppressor, who wanted to exploit the situation obtaining in 
A 
B 
the context of the acute housing shortage which prevailed. The 
tenant had either to yield to the unlawful demand of the 
landlord, or go without a roof, for- otherwise, the landlord 
C 
would not have granted the lease. The relevant provision 
prohibiting the payment of rent in advance embodied in the 
Rent Act was enacted precisely to protect the tenant from such 
exploitation. To deny access to justice to a tenant who is 
--1 obliged to yield to the unlawful demands of the landlord in 
this scenerio by invoking the doctrine of pari-delicto is to 
D 
add insult to injury, and to negate the very purpose of the 
provision designed for his protection. The doctrine of pari 
delicto eJDl>odying the rule that a party to a transaction 
prohibited by law cannot enforce his claim in a court of law 
is not attracted in a situation like the present. [ 624 H; 
625 A-D] 
E 
2. The doctrine of pari -delicto is not designed to 
reward the 'wrong-doer' or to penalize the 'wronged', by 
)denying to the victim of exploitation access to justice. The 
-doctrine is attracted only when none of the parties is a 
victim of such exploitation and both parties have voluntarily 
and by their free will joined hands to flout the law for their 
mutual gain. [625 D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No, 917 of 
1986. 
__, 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5,9,1985 of the Patna 
'High Court in Decree No. 300 of 1983, 
S.K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
P.P. Singh for the Respondents. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
•· . 
THAKKAR, J, One cannot conceive of a greater judicial 
sin than the sin of treating the 
'oppressor' 
and 
the 
'oppressed' on a par. Or that of rewarding the oppressor and 
B 
punishing the oppressed whilst administering the law designed 
to protect the oppressed. We would be guilty of committing 
this sin if. we uphold the view that the tenant who advances a 
, .... 
loan to the landlord. in order to secure the tenancy (i? " 
violation of the prohibition to do so embodied in the statute 
"""' 
enacted for his benefit) is in pari delicto. And that the 
C 
Court will not a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.