Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

According to the preamble on the cessation of the applicability of sub-rule 2 of rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules after September 30, 1946 it was considered expedient owing to the shortage of accommodation in the State of Uttar Pradesh to provide for the continuance during admitted period of powers to control the letting and "the rent of accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. Section 3 imposed restrictions on eviction. No suit could be filed in any civil court against the tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-s. (1) 'of that section without the permission of the District Magistrate or of the Commissioner to whom a revision lay against the order of the District Magistrate. Section 5 contained provisions relating to control of rent. The ether provisions of the Act need not be noticed. It has never been disputed that the Act was enacted for affording protection to the tenants against eviction except in the manner provided by the Act. It was also meant to regulate the letting of accommodation, fixing of rent etc., the provisions relating to which were all intended to confer benefits on the tenants against unreasonable and capricious demands of the landlords. At the same time' it appears that the legislature was conscious of the fact that the Act might retard and slacken the pace of construction of new buildings because the landlords would naturally be reluctant to invest money in properties the letting of which would be governed by the stringent provisions of the Act. It was for that purpose that the saving provision in s. 1-A seems to have been inserted. The essential question that has to be resolved is whether S. 1-A was merely in the nature of an exemption in favour of the landlords, with regard to the buildings constructed after January 1, 1951 and conferred a benefit on them which they could give up or waive by agreement or contractual arrangement and whether the consideration or object of such an agreement would not be lawful within the meaning of s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

The general principle is that every one has a right to waive and to agree to waive the advantage of a law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity which may be dispensed with without infringing any public right or public policy. Thus the maxim which sanction the nonobservance of the statutory provision is cuilibet licat renuntiare juri pro se introducto. (See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, pages 375 & 376.) If there is any express prohibition against contracting out of a statute in it then no question can arise of any one entering into a contract which is so prohibited but where there is no such prohibition it win have to be seen whether an Act is intended to have a more extensive operation 'as a matter of public policy. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 8, Third Edition, it is stated in paragraph, 248 at page 143 :

"As a general rule, any person can enter into a binding contract to waive the benefits conferred upon him by an Act of Parliament, or, as it is said, can contract himself out of the Act, unless it can be shown that such an agreement is in the circumstances of the particular case contrary to public policy. Statutory conditions may, however, be imposed in such terms that they cannot be waived by agreement, and, in certain circumstances, the legislature has expressly provided that any such agreement shall be void."

Now s. 1-A does not employ language containing a prohibition against or impose any restriction on a landlord and a tenant entering into an agreement that they would not be governed by that section. We concur with the view expressed in Neminath Appayya Hanumannavar v. Jamboorao Satappa Kocheri(1) that the words "if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law" in s. 23 of the Contract Act defer to performance of an agreement which necessarily entails the transgression of the Provisions of any law. What makes an agreement, which is other-wise legal, void is that its performance is impossible except by disobedience of law. Clearly no question of illegality can arise unless the performance of the unlawful act was necessarily the effect of an agreement. The following observations of Lord Wright in Vita Food Products Incorporated v. Unus Company Ltd.(1) (in Liquidation) are noteworthy in this connection "Nor must it be forgotten that the rule by which contracts not expressly forbidden by statute or declared to be void are in proper cases nullified for disobedience to a statute is a rule of public policy only, and public policy understood in a wider sense may at times be better served by refusing to nullify a bargain save on serious and sufficient grounds."