LexNUTAN KUMAR AND ORS. versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NUTAN KUMAR AND ORS. v. IINO ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 27, 2002 [S.N. VARIAVA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Uuar Prade3l1 Urban Buildings (Regulation of Le/ling, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 11, 12. 13, 17 and JI-Eviction suit-Trial court C dismissing on the ground that contract of tenancy contrary to statutory provisions-Writ Petition-Dismissal by Full Bench of High Court holding lease agreement entered in contravention of the provisions of !he Ac! void and decree for ejectment cannot be passed-And refusing lo follow a binding aulhoril)• lo !he effect that in the absence of any mandat01y provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of statutory provisions lease not void-On D appeal held, !he authority still hold the field and Full Bench was bound by the authority-Matter remitted back to High Court. E F Precedent-Judgment/Order-Binding nature of-Unless there is conflict of decisions judicial discipline and propriel)> requires that the binding authority is followed. Appellant-landlord filed suit for ejectment against respondent No.3 under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of non-payment of rent. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract of tenancy was entered into in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Revision Petition having been dismissed, appellant filed writ petition in High Court, and it was referred to Full Bench. The Full Bench by majority held that an agreement of lease between landlord and tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the Act is void and unenforceable and no decree for ejectment can be passed. Majority G judgment refused to follow Nanakram 's case a binding authority of this Court, holding that in the absence of any mandatory provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act the lease would not be void and the parties would be bound as between themselves, to observe the conditions of lease and held it to be in conflict with the decisions in Waman Shriniwas Kini, Shrikrishna Khanna and Manna Lal H 686 NUT AN KUMAR r. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 687 Khetan. Hence the present appeals. A Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: I. The principle that iii the absence of any mandatory •f provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act the lease would not be void and the parties would be bound as B between themselves, to observe the conditions of lease laid down in Nanakram 's case still hold the field. There is no contrary or connicting decision or authority. Full Bench of High Court was bound by the authority in Nanakram 's case and could not have taken a contrary view. 1693-B-C; 696-Ef C Nanakram v. Kundairai, 1198613 SCC 83, affirmed. Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co., 11959( Supp. 2 SCR 217, Shrikrishna Khanna v. A.D.M., Kanpur, 119751 2 SCC 361 and Manna Lal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, 119771 2 SCC 424, referred to. D 2. Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 specifically provides that a person who occupies, without an allotment order in his favour, shall be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such premises. As he is in unauthorized occupation he is like a trespasser. A suit for ejectment of a trespasser to E get back possession from a trespasser could always be filed. Such a suit would not be on the contract/agreement between the parties and would thus not be hit by principles of public policy also. 1696-G, HI 4. Unless the statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void the contract would remain F binding between the parties and would be enforced between the parties themselves. Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to High Court for deciding the writ petition in accordance with law. 1697-A-BI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 7254- G 7255 of 1996. From th.e Judgment and Order dated 20.5.93 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12384 of 1997. K.K. Mohan. for the Appellants. H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, (A.C.) and Shail Kumar Dwivedi, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.N. VARIAVA, J. These A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.