A Brothel Is Against Public Policy - 1500 Words

ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION Introduction : Mr. Kamal rents his house to Mr. Baazi for one year. Mr. Baazi uses the house to run a brothel. Mr. Kamal has decided to evict Mr. Baazi. When Mr. Kamal comes to know about the intentions about Mr. Baazi, he wants to evict him from his house. Now Mr. Kamal seeks to you to know whether he can evict Mr. Baazi on lawful grounds. Issues : 1) Whether the consideration and object is lawful? 2) Whether, running of a brothel is against public policy? 3) Is the usage of the house as a brothel will render the contract void? Arguments : For Plaintiff : The object used in the case is absolutely lawful. Plaintiff is the offeror and defendant is the offeree. Plaintiff was getting rent as the consideration in†¦show more content†¦Any contract whose consideration or object is immoral or opposed to public policy is void. In the case of V. Narasimha Raju Vs. V. Gurumurthy Raju Ors. , Supreme Court decided that the contract violating the public policy is void. In Uphill v. Wright , plaintiff sued the defendant for recovering the rent of the flat with the knowledge that she was the mistress of a person who used to visit her. The court held that the plaintiff can’t recover the money as the contract was for immoral purpose and is void. So when the consideration becomes illegal the contract becomes void and the plaintiff is the owner of the house and he has complete right to evict defendant lawfully. For Defendant: The parties are competent. There is an offer and acceptance between the parties, the object is the house and the consideration is the rent of the house which is valid. So, the contract between the parties is valid under the ICA . The contract was for the period of one year and due to which the defendant has complete right over the house for the period of one year. If the plaintiff wants the defendant to evict the house it should be done by the mutual consent of both the parties. If it is not done mutually and then the contract is broken it will be a breach of contract, and the plaintiff is liable to pay damages . The object in this case