M ANKAIAH GUPTA Vs. CH ANJANEYA GURUPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the tenant questioning the concurrentfindings given by both the courts below holding that he was unlawfully subletting the premises, entitling the respondent-landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner.

(2.) The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner,Sri T. Bali Reddy is that even according to the landlord, the sub-letting in question which was oral, was in force for over 19 years by the date of the petition and that the landlord must be deemed to have waived his right to evict the tenant on that basis. I am of the view that this submission cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Waman shrinivas Kini vs. Ratilal Bhagawandas And Co. 1. It has been held in that Case that it is not open to a tenant to contend that the landlord has waived his right to evict the tenant on the plea of sub-leiting. in that case also, as in the case before me, a contention was raised that the right to evict a tenant on the ground of unlawful sub-letting was a statutory right which like any other right, could be waived by the land-lord. But this contention was not accepted on the ground that the provisions prohibiting sub-tenancy are based on public policy and that it is not permissible for a tenant to contend that this statutory right has been waived Inasmuch as it was a matter of publie policy, it was further observed that it would not be open to the Court to come to the aid of a person who wants to enforce a term of an agreement which runs contrary to the provisions of the Rent statute. The Supreme Court elaborately considered the question referring to Surajmull Nagoremull vs. Triton Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanukdhari Singh vs. Nathima Sahu, Norwich Corporation vs. Norwich Electric Tramways Co 4, Oscanyan vs. Winchester Arms Co., and the observations of Swayne, J. in Wall Coppell6 and further observed that an agreement to waive an illegality is void on grounds of public policy and would be unenforceable.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, relied upona decision of a learned single judge in Kollipara Pardhasaradhi Nageswara Rao vs. Alamuri Venkataratnam. It is true that the learned judge observed that it is common knowledge that many a tenant or landlord are unlettered and out of mutual trust the tenant may not take the consent in writing or may not be aware of the need to obtain or give a consent in writing. The learned judge further observed that the right to permit a tenant to sub-let was a statutory right conferred on the landlord and it was open to the landlord to give up that right or be may waive a duty of his tenant to obtain his consent in writing and that the same is not opposed to public policy nor per se illegal.