B BALAIAH Vs. AHMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an extraordinary case where, in a suit for rent, the defendant confessed judgment to the extent of Rs. 60 and the Court completely dismissed the suit. The ground given by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, is that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had Contravened the mandatory provisions of law contained in section 3 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (XX of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by not informing the Controller that the malgies (small shops) fell vacant and that he did not take permission to lease them out and that, therefore, the contract of lease was against the public interest and therefore void. It is clear from a perusal of section 3 of the Act that the learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court, fell into a serious error in reaching a conclusion he did. Section 3 of the Act is as follows :- "(1) If any house situate in any area specified by the Government by notification in the Official Gazette, is vacant on the date of such notification or becomes vacant after such date, the landlord of such house shall give intimation thereof in the prescribed form to the Controller. (2) The intimation shall be given by registered post within one month of the date of notification, in the case of houses which are vacant on such date or of the houses becoming vacant or becoming available for occupation in other cases. (3) A landlord shall not, without the permission of the Controller let, occupy or permit to be occupied such house without giving intimation and for a period of fifteen days from the date on which intimation is received or within a period of one week after the termination of the proceedings under clause 6, if any, whichever is later.

(2.) It is true this section enjoins on the landlord to give intimation to the Controller of the fact that certain houses belonging to him had fallen vacant, and also directs that he shall not let it out without the permission of the Controller. All that can be said in this case is that the petitioner (landlord) contravened the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 3 of the Act. What is the effect of this contravention ? It is not the contravention of every rule of law that will render the action taken completely devoid of effect in law or that would cease to be enforceable in a Court of law. In order to determine when a contract would be void, one has to look to the provisions of the Contract Act. Section 23 thereof is as follows :- "The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law or, is of such a nature that," if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law ; or, is fr audulent ; or, involves or implies injury to the person or property of another ; or, the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy."

(3.) The contract in question obviously cannot fall within one or the other provisions of section 23 as the same is not forbidden by law, that is, which is not declared as illegal or void by law. There is no question of any public policy involved in this case, and the learned Additional Judge of Small Causes Court seems to have been under the impression that if public interests are involved and if the taking of a contract is likely to prejudice public interests, then that contract would be void. There is no authority obviously for this proposition. The penalty for acting in contravention of section 3 is provided, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Jehangir Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent, in section 33 of the Act which says that any person who contravenes any of the provisions of section 3, etc., shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000. This is not a case where the Controller considered fit or proper to take action under that section. If it was the intention of the Legislature that every contract entered into in contravention of section 3 should be void, it is open to the Legislature to have stated so in section 3 by declaring in one of the sub-section to the section that any contract of lease or tenancy entered in contravention of section 3 shall be void. Such provisions are common in various enactments, particularly in connection wth the tenancy legislation. To give an example, section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act declares that a transfer of agricultural holding effected after the Act came into force, without the approval and consent of the Collectors, shall be void. The very fact that there is no such provision in section 3 or in any other provision in the Act shows that it was not the intention of the Legislature that such a consequence should follow from a contravention of section 3. Hence the order of the learned Additional Judge is clearly wrong and requires to be set aside.