Skip to content


Choga Lal Vs. Piyari and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All58
AppellantChoga Lal
RespondentPiyari and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1872 (indian contract act), section 23 - contract--agreement immoral or opposed to public policy--lease of house to a prostitute. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in..........to determine whether the english law is applicable in this country, because we find that there is an express provision of the indian contract act under which a contract for such a purpose would be illegal. section 23 of that act provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless, amongst other things, the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. if the object of an agreement is immoral or opposed to public policy, clearly the agreement cannot be enforced. it cannot be denied that knowingly letting a house to a prostitute with the object of her carrying on therein prostitution is immoral and contrary to public policy, and a landlord who knowingly so lets quarters to a prostitute to carry on prostitution cannot recover the rent in a court.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. This is a reference made by the learned Cantonment Magistrate of Jhansi exercising the powers of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes, under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The question which he submits for the opinion of the Court is whether the English law is operative in a suit to recover rent due for a residence or quarters rented to a prostitute, with knowledge that such residence or quarters would be used by her to carry on her immoral trade and profession. It seems to us unnecessary to determine whether the English law is applicable in this country, because we find that there is an express provision of the Indian Contract Act under which a contract for such a purpose would be illegal. Section 23 of that Act provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless, amongst other things, the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. If the object of an agreement is immoral or opposed to public policy, clearly the agreement cannot be enforced. It cannot be denied that knowingly letting a house to a prostitute with the object of her carrying on therein prostitution is immoral and contrary to public policy, and a landlord who knowingly so lets quarters to a prostitute to carry on prostitution cannot recover the rent in a Court of law. This is the answer which we give to the reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //