Section 2, 33
|
Premises Rent Control Act, 1991
Section 2, 33
Enemy Property (Lands and Buildings) Administration and Disposal Order,
1966
The revisional Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the
concurrent finding of fact both the trial and the Appellate Court– Both
the trial Court and the Appellate Court after due consideration of the
materials on record came to concurrent findings that the
plaintiff-appellant failed to establish the existence of the landlord and
tenant relationship in between them since there is neither any positive
evidence to such fact nor there is any allegation of the case of holding
over after demise of landlord, Dhirendra Nath Sen and Shibsankar Mitra, the
predecessor of the plaintiff. Thus, the revisional Court acted beyond its
jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact and there is
misreading and misappreciation of the evidence on record regarding fact of
the case. Consequently, the judgment and order of the High Court Division
is set aside and thereby the concurrent finding and decision of the two
Courts below are restored. ...Sangit Parishad, Chittagong =VS= Prabir
Dutta, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 618]
....View Full Judgment
|
Sangit Parishad, Chittagong =VS= Prabir Dutta |
11 LM (AD) 618 |
Section 10
|
Salami money–
In absence of any stipulation in the agreement for lease it is difficult to
accept the contention of the tenant that the defaulted rent was liable to
be adjusted from the salami money, if the same was at all paid. .....Imam
Ahamed =VS= Abdul Mannan & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 427]
....View Full Judgment
|
Imam Ahamed =VS= Abdul Mannan & another |
1 LM (AD) 427 |
Section 10(2)(c)(ii)
|
Premises Rent Control Act, 1953
S. 10(2)(c)(ii): Requirement for the use of brother would not satisfy the
condition of the section— Requirement of the premises by the landlord for
the use of his brother would not satisfy the condition of section 1
0(2)(c)(ii) of the Act, in the absence of anything to show that the
premises were held by him for the benefit of his brother.
Abdullah Baloch vs. Adam Ali (1961) 13 DLR (SC) 13.
S. 14(3), cl.(h).
The necessary condition for interference by the Controller under clause (h)
of section 14(3) of the Act in a case like the present is that, in his
opinion, the rent at present fixed for any premises is not just and fair.
In such a case, he may fix a standard rent at such amount as, having regard
to the provisions of the Act and the circumstances of the case, he deems
just. Bearing in mind the proviso to the definition of “standard rent”,
the result might be that in a case of the present kind the “standard
rent” is any rent which the Controller might think to be just in his
uncontrolled discretion. Such a conclusion would, however, run contrary to
the nature of the Act, which provides with great particularity, in regard
to a large number of specific cases the manner in which the “standard
rent” shall be ascertained.
Md. Taher Ali Vs. Hari Pada Roy Chowdhury, (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 193.
S. 17(i)(e) — ‘Certificate’ of controller must satisfy all formal
requirement of law: Landlord’s plea that he required the premises
bonafide for personal use negatived by Rent Controller but he granted
certificate on the ground thaw landlord required the premises for
re-construction purpose and in so saying the Rent Controller not use the
words “reasonably and in good faith Certificate invalid in law.
Abdullah Baloch vs. Adam Ali (1961) 1 DLR (SC) 13.
|
Abdullah Baloch vs. Adam Ali |
1 DLR (SC) 13 |
Section 10
|
Prohibits acceptance of salami exceeding the amount of one month's
rent—
An agreement to the effect that in view of acceptance of an advance more
than one month's rent and the possession of the suit premises would be
transferable and the tenant will be non-ejectable being void as
contemplated under section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Act, 1991 and
section 23 of the Contract Act, 1972 can not be any bar to the suit of
ejectment. Moreover the bonafi.de requirement is the choice of the
landlord. Jahanam Khatun (Mst.) Vs. Md. Nund Islam 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 241.
|
Jahanam Khatun (Mst.) Vs. Md. Nund Islam |
12 MLR (AD) 241 |
Section 10
|
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 55
The Premises Rent Control Act, 1991
Section 10
As admittedly, the suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for eviction
of the Defendant-Respondent without seeking any remedy as to the
determination of the possessory right of the shop in question but the
Courts below as well the High Court Division without any coherent rationale
attached recognition to the so called possessory right of the Defendant-
Respondent which is nothing but insignificant, hence, Appellate Division
finds legal infirmity in dismissing the suit, holding monetary transaction
was for sell of possession seems to us in a suit for eviction is nothing
but superfluous. It, rather, amounts to passing preventive decree in favour
of the Defendant in the plaintiff's suit for eviction of monthly tenant.
––If the transferors and purchasers or possession holders before
purchase of possession of any property comply with the provisions of
section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 10 of the
Premises Rent Control Act, 1991 as well as Registration Act, 1908.
––Accordingly, the leave petition is disposed of. The impugned judgment
and order of the High Court Division and both the Courts below are set
aside. The suit is decreed. .....Rahima Begum =VS= Md. Zahidul Islam,
(Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 617]
....View Full Judgment
|
Rahima Begum =VS= Md. Zahidul Islam |
13 LM (AD) 617 |
Section 10
|
Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963
Section 10 r/w
The Premises of Rent Control Act, 1991
Section 10
Section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 prohibits
acceptance of premium, salami or any money more than one month’s rent by
the landlord. Similar provision is also provided in the Premises of Rent
Control Act, 1991. It says:
“10 Premium, salami or fine not to be claimed, received or asked for or
advance or more than one month’s rent not to be claimed or received- No
person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a
tenancy of any premises- (a) claim, receive or invite offers or ask for
payment of any pre-mium, salami, fine or any other like sum in addition to
the rent; or (b) except with the previous written consent of the
Controller, claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month’s
rent of such premises as rent in advance.” .....Banichitra Pratisthan
Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum, [3 LM (AD) 46]
....View Full Judgment
|
Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum |
3 LM (AD) 46 |
Section 11
|
The landlords are claiming advance as security money from the tenants even
in case of letting out premises for a limited period. This is totally
unauthorised. .....Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum, (Civil),
2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 46]
....View Full Judgment
|
Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum |
3 LM (AD) 46 |
Section 18
|
Ejectment of Tenant on ground of being defaulter and for bonafide
requirement —
Termination of tenancy by notice under section 1 06 of the Transfer of
Property Act, Suit is maintainable even though filed long after the date of
notice requiring the tenant to vacate. Kazi Md. Abdul Kiiddns and another
Vs. Most. Kaimon Beioa and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 248.
|
Kazi Md. Abdul Kuddus and another Vs. Most. Kaimon Beioa and others |
12 MLR (AD) 248 |
Section 18
|
Payment of rents for three months together at a time makes the tenant
defaulter —
Payment of rent for three months together at a time shows the tenant a
defaulter and makes him liable for eviction and such manner of payment of
rents does not protect him in a suit for ejectment. Rezaid Ahsan (Md.) Vs.
Salamat Miah Waiif Estate represented by its Mutuwalli Amir Sultan Ali
Haider and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 110.
|
Rezaid Ahsan (Md.) Vs. Salamat Miah Waiif Estate represented by its Mutuwalli Amir Sultan Ali Haider and others |
13 MLR (AD) 110 |
Section 18
|
Sale of possession by tenant is not recognised in law which may at best
create a sub-tenancy —
read with
Transfer of Property Act, 1 882 —
Section 106 — Notice for termination of tenancy is not required to be
served upon sub-tenant —
Sale of possession of the premises by tenant is not recognised in law in
Bangladesh even though there may be such practice in any area of the
country. Such sale of possession may at best create sub-tenancy. Notice
under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon subtenant need not
be served. Default in the payment of rent by the tenant renders him
including the sub-tenant liable to be evicted. Sirajul Haq (Md.) Vs. Md.
Abdul Halim and another 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 114.
|
Sirajul Haq (Md.) Vs. Md. Abdul Halim and another |
13 MLR (AD) 114 |
Section 18
|
Tenant when challenges the title of his landlord forfeits his right to stay
in the premises—
Power of Attorney— When original power of attorney is not produced the
copy thereof is held not a valid document—
The Appellate Division held as the respondent challenged the title of his
land lord his right to stay in the suit premises stood forfieted and as
such directed him to vacate the possession of the suit premises in favour
of his landlord. The apex court thus decreed the suit in part. Rabiul Awal
alias Sohel Miah (Md.) Vs. Md. Abdur Rab @ Abdur Rab 13 MLR (2008) (AD)
221.
|
Rabiul Awal alias Sohel Miah (Md.) Vs. Md. Abdur Rab @ Abdur Rab |
13 MLR (AD) 221 |
Section 18
|
A montly tenant who is a defaulter can be evicted from the suit premises
and he is not entitled to the protection under this section—
A monthly tenant is not a trespasser in the waqf property and as such
cannot be evicted therefrom under section 64(1) of the Waqf Ordinance, 1962
without having resort to the provision of the Premises Rent Control Act,
1991. Yousuf (Md.) and others Vs. Administrator of Waqf and others 11 MLR
(2006) (AD) 50.
|
Yousuf (Md.) and others Vs. Administrator of Waqf and others |
11 MLR (AD) 50 |
Section 18(4)
|
The judgment-debtor laid an application under section 46 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to direct the decree-holder to complete construction of the
proposed market within six months and also to pass necessary direction
under section 18(4) of the Premises Rent Control Act, 1991 to the
decree-holder to let out a specific shop room to the judgment-debtor as per
approved plan in view of the observation made by the Appellate Division.
Undisputedly, the judgment-debtor is still occupying the possession of the
premises as a result of which the plaintiff did not get vacant possession
of the premises and, as such, the question of construction of the building
within a specified period or to undertake to let out a shop room to the
judgment-debtor does not arise.
Mukti Pada Shil vs Golam Mohammad 10 BLC (AD) 6.
|
Mukti Pada Shil vs Golam Mohammad |
10 BLC (AD) 6 |
Sections 19 and 20
|
If the landlord accepts rent in respect of any premises sent by postal
money order by the tenant, the fact of this acceptance or withdrawal shall
not be used in any way as evidence that he has admitted as correct any of
the particulars set forth in the postal money order form or in the
application for deposit of such rent or that he has waived any notice to
quit given by him to the tenant.
Intekhab Ahmed Khan -Vs.- Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury 5 ALR (AD)2015(1)13
|
Intekhab Ahmed Khan -Vs.- Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury |
5 ALR (AD) 13 |