Judgment 1. THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 158 kalighat Road. The defendant is a tenant with respect to one room in the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs.40/ -. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent, from the month of April 1960 to February 1962. At the heatring of the plaintiff's petition under section 17 (3)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, it transpired that the defendant was a prostitute and she carried on prostitution in the said premises. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant that as the premises was being used as a brothel, the plaintiff could not recover rent from the defendant. The plaintiff's application under section 17 (3) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, was however allowed and defence against delivery of possession was struck out. An issue was framed upon these materials "whether the suit was maintainable" ? The trial court found on evidence that the plaintiff had knowledge about the vocation of the defendant. The premises has got six rooms. The remaining five rooms are also occupied by women who are all prostitutes and they carry on their vocation at the said premises. The learned trial judge was of opinion that the room was let out to a prostitute for the purpose of her residence and not for the purpose of prostitution. Therefore contractual agreement between the parties is neither illegal nor immoral and as such it is not hit by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Upon this view, the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. 2. ON appeal, the learned Additional district Judge took a different view and allowed the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the plaintiff cannot enforce an illegal contract either for the purpose of recovery of rent and damages or for the purpose of getting an order of eviction. An agreement, the consideration or object of which is illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy, is not a contract under the Indian law. A landlord who knowingly lets a room to a prostitute to carry on prostitution there, cannot either recover rent or evict such a tenant in a court of law. An agreement, the consideration or object of which is illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy, is not a contract under the Indian law. A landlord who knowingly lets a room to a prostitute to carry on prostitution there, cannot either recover rent or evict such a tenant in a court of law. The rule which is applicable to the matter is "ex turpi causa non oritur actio". 3. IN (1) Upfill v. Wright reported in 1911 (1 KB) 506, the plaintiff by his agent let a flat to the defendant for a term of three years. The agent knew that the defendant was the mistress of certain man, and he assumed that the rent would come through her being a kept woman and would come from the man whose mistress she was; and he knew that the man went constantly to the flat to visit her. After the expiration of the term the defendant continued as tenant from year to year. In an action to recover the rent; it was held that the flat was let out for an immoral purpose and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. 4. IN (2) Smith v. White reported in LR 1 Eq. 626, a lessee of a house, which, to his knowledge, had for many years been used as a brothel, assigned the lease absolutely, knowing that the assignee intended to use the house for the same purpose. The original lease contained covenants to deliver up at the end of the term, in good repair, and not to use the house as a brothel; and the assignment contained a covenant to indemnify the lessee from the covenants in the lease. The lessee having been compelled to pay for dilapidations at the end of the lease, sought to recover the amount from the estate of the assignee: which was being administered- it was held that the assignment and everything arising out of it was so tainted with the immoral purpose that the plaintiff could not recover. In (3) Pearce and Another v. Brooks, reported in (1866) LR 1 Ex. 213, the defendant, a prostitute, was sued by the plaintiffs, coach-builders for the hire of a brougham. In (3) Pearce and Another v. Brooks, reported in (1866) LR 1 Ex. 213, the defendant, a prostitute, was sued by the plaintiffs, coach-builders for the hire of a brougham. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs looked expressly to the proceeds of the defendant's prostitution for payment; but the Jury found that they knew her to be a prostitute and supplied the brougham with the knowledge that it would be, as in fact it was, used, by her as part of her display to attract men. It was held that the plaintiffs could not recover the hire charges. 5. IN (4) Gourinath Mukherji v. Madhumani Peshakar reported in (1872) 9 BLR Appendix 77, the plaintiffs sue the defendant a prostitute, for rent of a room for a certain building in which she lives and plies her vocation. Reference was sought by the judge of the Small Cause Court at krishnagar for opinion of this Court under section 22 of Act XI of 1865, art the followng point-whether a landlord can recover rent of lodgings knowingly let to a prostitute, who also carries on her yocation there ? The reference was answered in the negative by Sir richard Couch, C. J. and Ainslie, J. The learned Judges further held that principles which govern the English cases are applicable in this country. 6. IN another reference under section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 corresponding to Section 113 of the Code, 1908 in (5) Choga Lal v. Piyari and Another, reported in (1909)ILR 31 Allahabad 58, Sir John Stanley c. J. and Banerjee, J. held 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 contract for such a purpose would be illegal and hit by the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. These cases, in my judgment, establish the principle that where an agreement is illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy, such an agreement cannot be enforced in a court of law, when facts which go to make a contract illegal come to the notice of the Court. 7. NOW, applying the test in the instant case, it is clear from the evidence on records, that the plaintiff landlord knowingly let out the room to the defendant who is a prostitute and carries on prostitution there. 7. NOW, applying the test in the instant case, it is clear from the evidence on records, that the plaintiff landlord knowingly let out the room to the defendant who is a prostitute and carries on prostitution there. The landlord participated in the illegal act and in the immoral gains of the defendant. Therefore, the present case comes within the rule-"ex turpi causa, non oritur actio"-out of a forbidden or immoral act, no cause of action can arise. The plaintiff's contract of tenancy with the defendant must be regarded as immoral and opposed to public policy. For these reasons, I maintain the decree passed by the Court of appeal below and dismiss this appeal. There will be no order for costs.