MEWA RAM Vs. CHKARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The opposite party was defendant 1 to the suit. Defendants 2 to 4 were his tenants in an occupancy holding. He ejected them under Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. On 7 January 1938 he admitted the applicant to the vacant holding on a rent of Rs. 36 per annum. He also took from him a nazrana of Rs. 300 as consideration for conferring occupancy rights upon him under Section 17 of the Act. The applicant thereafter built a masonry well in the holding. Subsequently the U. P. Tenancy Act was passed, which came into force on 1 January 1940, and, in accordance with the provisions of Section 294 of that Act, the ejected tenants-- that is to say defendants 2 to 4--were restored to the holding and the applicant was thereby dispossessed. The applicant then raised this action for recovery of Rs. 500. Of this, Rs. 300 re-presented the nazrana and Rs. 200 was alleged to represent the cost of building the well. The suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant does not challenge the finding of the Court below that the claim for compensation in respect to the well was not maintainable in the civil Court. What he pleads is that, as regards the payment of Rs. 300 for conferment of occupancy rights, consideration failed and his client is therefore entitled to recover this amount. Learned Counsel relies on Section 65, Contract Act, which provides: When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that if a person covenants to do a thing which is lawful and a subsequent Act of Parliament prevents him, from doing it, the covenant is repealed: see Leake on Contracts, Edn. 6, p. 572. But a repealed covenant is not synonymous with a void covenant, and the covenant between the applicant and the opposite party was perfectly valid when it was made. Moreover, the opposite party did all that was required of him under the cove nant, for, he admittedly conferred occupancy rights on the applicant and the latter peacefully enjoyed these rights for about three years.