AHMED ABDUL SAYEED Vs. NARBHRAM BABU BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises under the Rent Control Act at the instance of the landlord. The eviction petition is filed on the ground of bona fide requirement. Both the Courts below arrived at concurrent findings that there is bond fide requirement. But however the claim for eviction was negatived on the ground that the landlord on an earlier occasion waived the right to enforce eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. In the dispute culminating in C R P 226/62 and incorporated in the compromise decree exhibited as A-2, it was agreed that the landlord shall not claim the eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the ground of requirement and the tenant gave up the right to seek fixation of fair rent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this agreement is opposed to public policy and the contracting out of the provisions of the statute is not enforceable and as such the compromise decree does not preclude the petitioner from seeking eviction. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the waiver of benefits under the Act fs not in derogation of the provisions of the statute and the question of contravening the public policy does not arise.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Murlidhar v State of UP (1) AIR 1974 S C 1924 arising under U P (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. In this case clause 20 of the lease deed between the landlord and the tenant provided that the parties will never claim the benefits of the Act and that the provisions of the Act will not be applicable to the lease deed and it is also expressly stated in the lease deed that the agreement of lease was entered into with the knowledge of the existing Rent Control and Eviction Act- In the context of considering whether clause 20 of the lease deed is illegal the Supreme Court held as follows : -