MURLIDHAR AGARWAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 29-07-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
515 
MURLIDHAR AGARWAL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
July, 29, 1974 
[A.N. RAY, C.J. AND K.K. MATHEW J.] 
Constitution oj India, 1950-Article 226-Powers-of High Court to interfere with 
reiisional orders passed by State Govetnment under s. 7F oj U.P. Ten1porary Control 
of Rent and Eviction Acti 1947. 
Public Policy-U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 s. 3(1}-
Suit for eriction to be instituted with permission of District Magistrate-Whether 
tenant can waive the requirement of·Section. 
U. P. (Ten1porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 -Powers of the High 
Court under writ jurisdiction to interfere with the revisional oFder passed by the State 
Government under section 7F of the Act. 
The Additional District Magistrate passed an order for evictiOn against tenant 
on an application by the landlord under Section ?A of the Act. On revision, the 
Additional Commissioner confirmed the order of eviction. The State Government 
in exercise of its revisional powers under section ?F set aside the orders passed by the 
two authorities and held that the tenant was not liable to be evicted from the 
premises. The State Government passed the order on the basis that the tenant 
was running a cinema in the premises since the year 1952 and that the District 
Magistrate when he granted the licence was satisfied that the tenant was in lawful 
occupation and that, therefore, the tenant was entitled to the benefit of proviso to· 
section ?A (1) of the Act. On writ Petition filed, the Learned Single Judge of 
the High Court quashed the order of the State Government. The Division 
Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the Learned Single Judge. 
The landlord instituted a suit against the tenant for eviction without obtaining: 
the permission of the District Magistrate under section 3(1) of the Act. The land~ 
lord relied on one of the clauses in the lease deed which pro·vided that the parties 
agreed that they would not claim the benefit of the Rent Control and Eviction Act 
and that the provisions of the said Act were agreed not to be applicable to the said 
lease. The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section1 
(3)(1) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : The High Court was right in holding that section J was applicable and. 
therefore, the suit was not maintainable. [585C-D] 
(1) Having regard to the definition of tenant in section 2(g) and the scheme 
of the Act a person is a 'tenant' 
under section 3 even though he is. 
occupying the accommodation without an allotment order. [5800-H] 
Udho Dass v. Prem Prakash, (2) (1963) A. L. J. 406, apprnved. 
(2) The language of section 3(1) is imperative and it prohibits the institution of 
the suit without the permission of the District Magistrate. The policy of the Act 
seems to be that a responsible authority like District Magistrate should consider 
the claim of the landlord and needs of the tenant before granting permission The. 
object of the Act was to protect tenants from greedy and grasping landlords and 
from their resorting to court for eviction of tenants without reasonable grounds. 
There can be no doubt that the provision has been enacted for protecting one set 
of men from another set of men. The one from their situation and condition are: 
liable to be oppressed and impoSied upon. Though there is considerable support 
in judicial dicta for the view that courts cannot create new heads of public policy 
there is also no lack of judicial authority for the view that the categories of heads-
of public policy are not closed. Public policy does not remain static in any given 
community. Public 
policy 
would be almost useless if it were to remain in, 
fixed moulds for all times. Our law relies on the implied insight of the judge on• 
such matters. Section 3 is based on ·public policy. It is intended to protect a. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] 1 S.C.R. 
weaker section of the community with a view to ultimately protecting the interests 
.of the community in general by creating equality of bargaining power. The tenant 
could not have waived the benefit of the provision. [581 E-F; 582 G; 584B-
•GG--585C] 
Lachoo Mal v. 
Radhey Shyam 
[1971] 3 S. C. R. 693, Ghera/al Parakh v. 
Mahadeodas Maiya Das [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 406, 440., referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
Nos. 
2370 
-Of 1969 
Appeal from the judgement and order dated the 22nd May, 1969 
.of tho Allahaba

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