ORDER
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging order Annexure P-1 passed by the Lok Adalat at Guna whereby Appeal No. 2-A/06 pending in the Court of III, Additional District Judge, (Fast Track), Guna is disposed of with a direction to the present petitioner/plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 1,88,000/- to the respondent tenant for vacating the premises.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit against the respondent on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act alleging that the defendant in spite of notice are not regular in payment of rent. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs requires the said accommodation for his grandson for starting business of stationary and there is no other suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Guna. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The said judgment and decree is challenged by the defendant/tenant by filing an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal at Lok Adalat was held under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Lok Adalat directed the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,88,000/- to the defendant tenant for executing the decree in his favour. This order is under challenge in this petition.
3. The first contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order Annexure P-1 illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the order passed by the Lok Adalat can be challenged by way of filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. For this purpose he has relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of the The Commissioner, Karnataka State Public Instruction Education, Bangalore v. Nirpadi Virbhadrappa Shiva Simpi : AIR2001Kant504 .
4. In the aforesaid judgment the Karnataka High Court after going through the various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act has held that the order passed by the Lok Adalat can be challenged by way of filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was not present on the date when the Lok Adalat has passed the impugned order.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the signature of present petitioner/plaintiff does not appear on the order nor his presence is marked in the impugned order. The presence of his Counsel is of course marked. Thus, the present petitioner was not consenting party before the Lok Adalat. Apart from this even assuming that the present petitioner was a consenting party to the agreement this Court will have to decide whether the order passed by the Lok Adalat is in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities act or not. The compromise application is nothing but an agreement between the parties and in an agreement which is contrary to the public policy cannot be enforced.
7. The provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act clearly bars payment of any money for letting the premises or vacating the same.
8. Section 6 of the said Act lays down subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.
Sub-clause (2) of Section 6 provides that no person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any accommodation.
(a) Claim or receive any payment or any sum as premium or pugree or claim or receive any consideration whatsoever, in cash or in kind, in addition to the rent.
Sub-clause (3) of Section 6 provides that it shall not be lawful for the tenant or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant or a sub-tenant to claim or receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of his tenancy or sub-tenancy, as the case may be, of any accommodation.
9. Thus, to claim or receive any amount by tenant for relinquishment of his tenancy rights is prohibited by Section 6 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
10. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that if consideration or object of the agreement is unlawful or is contrary to the public policy then such contract is illegal and does not bind the parties.
11. Thus, in the present case the order passed by the Lok Adalat is not only against Section 6 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act but also against the public policy hence, such contract is illegal and is nullity and cannot be enforced in the eye of law.
12. In view of this matter the order Annexure P-1 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and this hereby quashed. As the appeal filed by the respondent is not decided on merits, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the Appellate Court to restore the appeal filed by the respondent and here it on merits within a period of 6 months from the date of appearance of the parties.
13. The present petitioner/plaintiff shall appear before the Appellate Court before 15-1-2007. Thereafter, the Court shall issue notice to the respondent tenant and decide the matter on merits within 6 months from 15-1-07.
14. With this direction stand disposed of.
Certified copy per rules.