DHONDI RAM Vs. SUKKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by way of 'writ of certiorari' directed against the order of the Collector, Bhir District, declining to pass an order of eviction and allowing the appeal of the tenant. The landlord applied to the House Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on two grounds: firstly, that he entered into an agreement with the landlord to vacate the premises within a period of five months and that that period had expired. Secondly, he also sought eviction on the ground that the malgi was required for his own personal use. The Rent Controller passed an order directing the eviction of the tenant subject to the condition that the tenant was provided with another malgi which also belonged to the landlord. Against this order, the tenant appealed to the Collector, who, while differing from the Rent Controller, dismissed the petition of the landlord. This writ is directed against the above order.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the learned Vakil lor the Petitioner is that inasmuch as where the tenant had entered into an agreement of tenancy for a fixed period, the provisions of the House Rent Control Order would not apply and that he was entitled to evict the tenant under the terms of the agreement after the expiry of the term fixed in the agreement of tenancy. We are inclined to agree with this argument of the Petitioner and we are of the opinion that it is open to a party to waive and agree to waive the advantage of a temporary and emergency law of the nature of the House Rent Control Order and in this ease we hold that the tenant has expressly waived the benefit that he might be entitled to under the Rent Control Order. In such cases, the special emergency law would not apply and the case would be governed by the terms of the contract. We are supported in this view of ours by a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Raja Chetty v. Jagannathadas : AIR 1950 Mad 284, and also by the judgment in the case of Soho Square Syndicate Ltd. v. E. Pollard and Co., 1940 1 Ch 638 :, 1940 -2 All ER 601. Therefore, on this ground that the tenant by an express contract agreed to vacate the premises after a period of five months, we hold that the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant. It is not necessary to go into any other question. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and restore the order of the Rent -Controller. We make no order as to costs.