NANAKRAM ETC. versus KUNDALRAI ETC.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 29-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

839 
NANAKRAK ETC. 
A 
v. 
KIJNDAIBAI ETC. 
APRIL 29, 1986 
[R.S. PATHAK, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Landlord and tenant -
Central Provinces and Berar 
~,Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, clauses 22, 23, 
24, 28 and 30 read with section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 -
Whether a lease concluded between a landlord and a tenant in 
contravention of clause 22 of the Rent Control Order can be 
~ 
assailed by the landlord as a void transaction in a proceeding 
' between the parties to the lease - Whether 
the Notification 
+ under clause 30 retrospective -
Concurrent findings of the 
Courts below cannot be interfered with under Article 136 of 
the Constitution. 
Under clause 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar 
Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 every landlord 
of a house situated in an area to which those provisions 
extend is required by the statute to give intimation of a 
~ 
vacancy to the Deputy Collllissioner. Clause 22(1} declares that 
the landlord shall not let or occupy the house except in 
accordance with clause 23. Clause 22(2) provides that no 
person shall occupy a house except under an order under clause 
23(1) or clause 24 or on an assurance from the landlord that 
the house is being permitted to be occupied in accordance with 
---1 clause 23(2). Clause 23 provides that the Deputy Comissioner 
msy, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the 
intimation of a vacancy, order the landlord to let the vacant 
, 
house to any person holding an office of profit under th" 
Union or State Government or to a displaced person or to an 
evicted person and thereupon, notwithstanding any agreement to 
the contrary, the landlord is obliged to let the house to such 
person and place him in possession thereof. If the landlord 
states that he needs the house for his own occupation he 1111St 
satisfy the Deputy Collllissioner in that behalf. The clause 
1>.L provides further that if no order is passed and served upon 
r the landlord within the period mentioned in clause 23(1), it 
is open to the landlord to let the vacant house to any person. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 s.c.R. 
Clause 28 empowers the Deputy Conmissioner to take or cause to 
be taken such steps and use or cause to be used such force, as )...." 
may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing 
compliance with, or for preventing or rectifying any contra-
vention of, the Rent Control Order. Clause 30 empowers the 
State Government to exempt, by Notification in the official 
Gazette, any house or class of houses or any person or class 
of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Rent 
Control Order. On October 24, 1968 a Notification was issued 
under clause 30 exempting from all the provisions of Chapteri 
Ill of the Rent Control Order any 
house used for a non-
residential purpose, if it was constructed before January 1, 
1967. 
In 
both 
the 
Civil 
appeals 
the 
landlords 
moved 1
applications before the Deputy Commissioner concerned to + 
declare the tenancy lease entered into by them with their 
respective tenants as void in as D11ch they were created in 
violation of clauses 22 and 23 of Chapter III of the Rent 
Control Order. The appellant-tenants who have lost their 
defence pleas have come up in appeals by special leave. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HEU>: 1. Nowhere does the Central Provinces and Berar < 
Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 which ls par1 
Eteria with the U.P. Act mandate that the Deputy Comissioner 
1111St eject a person who has entered into possession of a house 
in violation of clause 22. If upon a view of the circumstances 
prevailing then, the Deputy Connissioner takes no action in ).-
the matter, there is no reason why the lease between the 
landlord and the tenant, although inconsistent with clause 22, 
should not be binding as between the parties thereto. It is ·~ 
not a void transaction. There is nothing in the Rent Control 
Order declaring it to be so. Now if the lease is not void then 
it is not open to either party to avoid the lease on the 
ground that it is inconsistent with clause 22. The parties 
would be bound, as between them, to observe the conditions of 
the lease, and it cannot be assailed by either party in a 
proceeding between them. [849 C-E] 
!mrlldbar Agarw.1 aad Am:. v. State of U.P. & Ora., 
[1975) 1 s.c.R. 575 followed. 
NANAKRAM v. KUNDALRAI 
841 
'-...( 
Udboo Dus v. Pr

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