Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 15 and Article 4 |
Eviction of a person inducted by the monthly tenant—Whethera suit for eviction of such a person in the Small Cause Court is maintainable—When the defendant No.1 was admittedly a monthly tenant who inducted the defendant No.2 in the suit premises without the knowledge and consent of the latter such transaction was in the nature of a sub-lease. No question of giving consent to the sub-lease arises—When tenancy in favour of defendent No. I was terminated the sub-lease in favour of defendant No.2 cannot subsist—It would be merely a legalistic approach to say that the defendent No.2 became a trespasser and a Suit for eviction did not lie against him—Technicalities of law may sometimes prove to be of great value in winning even, a bad case, but when the very bottom of a case is struck off, no one can hope to score. Victory on such technicalities alone. Tajabunnessa and others Vs. Mrs. Nazma Begum and others, 7BLD (AD)205. |
Tajabunnessa and others Vs. Mrs. Nazma Begum and others | 7 BLD (AD) 205 |
Section 15 |
SCC Judge has no jurisdiction to go into the question of paramount title, and in doing so to set aside the decree of a civil Court obtained in a suit for specific performance of contract. The Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title except — incidentally. Sudhangsu Kumar Chowdhury vs Ali Hossain 46 DLR (AD) 151. |
Sudhangsu Kumar Chowdhury vs Ali Hossain | 46 DLR (AD) 151 |
Section 15, Article 3 Second Schedule |
High Court Division fell into an error of law in holding that sec Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the order of cancellation of validation of the power of attorney. Whether the order and then the cancellation thereof are legally valid or not are questions germane to the subject matter in controversy and no extraneous to the suit. SCC Judge refused to exercise a jurisdiction which was lawfully vested in him and the High Court Division also took an erroneous view of the matter. Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder 42 DLR (AD) 244. |
Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder | 42 DLR (AD) 244 |
Section 15(1) & (4) |
Plaintiff by a conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted without notice—his suit is not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes. Fazlur Rahman Shah vs Md Arifur Rahman @ Badsha 48 DLR (AD) 128. |
Fazlur Rahman Shah vs Md Arifur Rahman @ Badsha | 48 DLR (AD) 128 |
Section 15(2) & Article 4 Second Schedule |
In order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not, one has to refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the allegations make out a 'prime facie' case which falls well within the cognizance of a Small Cause Court, it will be immaterial what the defence is. Haji Kasimuddin Mandal being dead his heirs Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin Pramanik 48 DLR (AD) 205. |
Haji Kasimuddin Mandal being dead his heirs Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin Pramanik | 48 DLR (AD) 205 |
Section 15, 23 |
The Court of Small Causes is entitled to consider question of title incidentally but not when the question of title becomes an issue on law. Abdul Khalek Mia.. Appellant, Vs. Maya Debi & ors.. Respondents (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khalek Mia.. Appellant, Vs. Maya Debi & ors. | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 15(1) |
read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule
|
Md. Faziur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Anfur Rahman alias Badsha Chairman | 16 BLD (AD)1 79 |
Section 15(2) |
Generally suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand taka is triable by a Court of Small Causes. Subsection (2) of Section (2) of Section 15 read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes to entertain and try a suit for ejectment of a monthly tenant by his landlord. The plea of the defendant does not determine or change the forum of trial nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. In order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not, one has to refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the allegations in the plaint make out a prima facie case which comes within the ambit of a Small Cause Court, the defence plea will be immaterial. In the instant case, the suit is in essence a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. Once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the plaintiff he cannot be thrown out of the Court on the plea of tenant’s title on which the landlord’s claim does not depend. In such a case, the question of title to the disputed premises is not at all relevant. When it is found that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff, the defendant is precluded from setting up his own title and denying the title of the plaintiff in the suit premises. Haji Kasimuddin Mandal Vs. Md. Jalauddin Pramanik, 16 BLD (AD) 228. |
Haji Kasimuddin Mandal Vs. Md. Jalauddin Pramanik | 16 BLD (AD) 228 |
Section 15(2) |
read with clause (4) of Article I of the Second Schedule
|
Aziz Ahmed Sarker and others Vs Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur | 17 BLD (AD) 174 |
Section 15(1) |
Suit for ejectment— Jurisdiction of small cause court—
|
Md. Fazlur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Arifur Rahman @ Badshah | 1 MLR (AD) 258 |
Section 15 |
Suit for ejectment of licensee does not lie in S.C.C. Court—
|
Aziz Ahmed Sarker and others Vs. Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur | 3 MLR (AD) 139 |
Section 15 (1) |
Suit for eviction—Held: We have gone through the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court Division. The High Court Division has rightly taken the view that the title of the plaintiff to the suit property is itself clouded and the registered lease deed Ext. 1 was not acted upon in as much as admittedly there was no payment of rent in terms as the said lease deed. The suit therefore involved a serious question of title and in the absence of a proper suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession a simple S. C. C. suit under the circumstances does not lie. [Para-7] Bablu Mia Vs. Mrs Nurjahan Begum & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-223 |
Bablu Mia Vs. Mrs Nurjahan Begum & Ors. | 4 BLT (AD) 223 |
Section 15 (1) |
Read with Article-(4) of the Second Schedule
|
Md. Fazlur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Arifur Rahman | 4 BLT (AD) 236 |
Section 17(1) |
When the party seeking to have the ex parte decree set aside is found willfully neglectful to comply with provision of section 17 (regarding deposit for the dues or furnishing security bond) even though the defect was brought to his notice—Ex parte decree cannot be set aside. Md Ebadullah Bepari vs Nikhil Chandra Das 37 DLR (AD) 174. |
Md Ebadullah Bepari vs Nikhil Chandra Das | 37 DLR (AD) 174 |
Section 17(1) |
Proviso
|
A.K. Murshed Ahmed...Appellant Vs. Md. Meher Ali and ors. | 35 DLR (AD) 178 |
Section 23 |
Plea of title does not oust jurisdiction of S.C. court-Promissory
estoppel—
|
Afroza Bewa and others Vs. Md. Jalalauddin Pramanik and others | 1 MLR (AD) 305 |
Section 23 |
There is no absolute bar to the Courts of Small Cause to consider title incidentally while deciding a case between a landlord and a tenant. Any decision on title in an SCC suit does not preclude a suit for title. Under section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act the Court in its discretion may return the plaint only if it thinks that the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant depends upon resolution of a question of title and thus, the Court of Small Causes was quite competent to entertain and dispose of the suit where there has been no haze about tht relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant. Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa 6 BLC (AD) 115. |
Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa | 6 BLC (AD) 115 |
Section 23 |
High Court Division ought to have passed order in terms of section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act which provides that in a case where a question of title is involved it is the proper course to act under the said' section to return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. Ratan Chandra Roy vs Rehana & Rehana Ahmed and others 8 BLC (AD) 18. |
Ratan Chandra Roy vs Rehana & Rehana Ahmed and others | 8 BLC (AD) 18 |
Section 23 |
The respondent before the trial Court filed an application for returning the plaint. As the suit involves a question of title and in view of the submission made on behalf of the respondent let the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. Narayan Chandra Barker vs Abdur Rahman 9 BLC (AD) 211. |
Narayan Chandra Barker vs Abdur Rahman | 9 BLC (AD) 211 |
Section 23 |
In the instant case the suit is in essence and substantially a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. In such a case the question of title to the disputed premises is not relevant at all once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the plaintiff—the landlord cannot be thrown out of the Court of Small Causes on the plea of tenant’s title on which the landlord’s claim does not depend. [Para – 13] Afroza Bewa & Ors. Vs. Md. Jalaluddin Pramanik 4 BLT (AD)-278 |
Afroza Bewa & Ors. Vs. Md. Jalaluddin Pramanik | 4 BLT (AD) 278 |
Section 24 |
S. 24 provides for an appeal only in certain cases under clause (II) or clause (h) of section 104 (I) C.P.C.. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 24 |
S. 24 provides for an appeal only in certain cases under clause (II) or clause (h) of section 104 (I) C.P.C.. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 25 |
Plaintiff instituted S.C.C. Suit No.8 of 1994 in the Court of Senior
Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna against Lal
Mohammad-respondent herein, praying for a decree for ejecting him and for
rent and mesne profit. After hearing the parties, upon considering the
evidence and materials on record, the Senior Assistant Judge and Small
Causes Court, Khulna by his judgement and decree dated 26.04.2000 dismissed
the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No.3070
of 2000 under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act before the High
Court Division and obtained Rule, which upon hearing the parties was
discharged.
|
Begum Marium =VS= Zubaida @ Zubeda Khatun | 10 LM (AD) 11 |
Section 25 |
High Court’s power of interference u/s. 25.
|
Abdus Sattar & ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das & ors. | 32 DLR (AD) 170 |
Section 25 |
S. 25 give the jurisdiction to the High Court Division to satisfy that a decree or order by S.C.C. was according to law. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 25 |
Decree by the Court of Small Causes—Ambit of revision—The propositions laid down in the judgment of the High Court Division are wide and speculative in that conclusions of fact reached by the sec judge in the instant case are not perverse; it is not a case where all matters have not been taken into consideration; it is not a case of mistrial; there is no mistake in placing the onus of proof. The question of preventing miscarriage of justice or gross illegalities does not arise. Abdur Razzaq vs Ansar Ali 43 DLR (AD) 212. |
Abdur Razzaq vs Ansar Ali | 43 DLR (AD) 212 |
Section 25 |
The petitioner was found as a tenant under the respondents to whom he had paid rent and as such he is debarred from setting up a claim of title in himself to resist the decree for eviction. Atiqullah (Md) vs Sanawara Begum and others 50 DLR (AD) 112. |
Atiqullah (Md) vs Sanawara Begum and others | 50 DLR (AD) 112 |
Section 25 |
High Court’s power of interference u/s. 25.
|
Abdus Sattar & ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das & ors. | 32 DLR (AD) 170 |
Section 25 |
S. 25 give the jurisdiction to the High Court Division to satisfy that a decree or order by S.C.C. was according to law. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 25 |
Service of notice u/s 106 T.P. Act—
|
Mosammat Mohsena Khatoon Vs. M/s. Habib Knitting Mills | 1 MLR (AD) 387 |
Section 25 |
Scope of interference in revision with findings of presumption about
service of notice u/s 106 of T.P. Act by registered post—
|
Nurul Islam (Md) Vs. Md. Ali Hossain Mia being dead his heirs Md. Amir Hossain and others | 3 MLR (AD) 81 |
Section 25 |
Suit for ejectment-Pending Title suit no impediment-
|
Anowarul Ferdous (Md) Vs. Most Umrne Salema Begum | 3 MLR (AD) 134 |
Section 25 |
Effect of decree of subsequent suit on the decree of small cause court—
|
Priti Rani Das Vs. Haran Chandra Gope being dead his heirs Gonesh Chandra Chose & others | 4 MLR (AD) 430 |
Section 25 |
Ejectment of tenant—
|
Sheikh Ahmed Vs. Noor Khatun and others | 5 MLR (AD) 319 |
Section 25 |
In any view, the scope of the scrutiny under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act is much wider and the revisional Court is permitted to reassess the evidence in the light of the pleadings of the parties and also may consider all other evidence on record and is not restricted in exercise of its revisional power as is limited under Section 115( 1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Md. Nasiruddin Vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman 20 BLT (AD) 222. |
Md. Nasiruddin Vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman | 20 BLT (AD) 222 |
Section 25 |
The notice of attainment dated 20-10-91 was in the nature of an intimation to the petitioner that after Aftabuddin’s death his heirs have sold the demised premises to the plaintiffs. The statement that the relationship between landlord and tenant stood severed after the death of Aftabuddin was made in view of the prevailing law that a monthly tenancy ceases with the death of either the landlord or the tenant. [Para-7] A. M. M. Azizul Bari Vs. Hazi Md. Amanullah & Ors 6 BLT (AD)-133 |
A. M. M. Azizul Bari Vs. Hazi Md. Amanullah & Ors | 6 BLT (AD)133 |
Section 28A(2) |
With the insertion of section 28A(2), an order u/s. 28A(2) is not revisable u/s.25.—Therefore when order is passed by a District Judge u/s. 28A(2), sec. 25 does not confer any jurisdiction against such order. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 28A(2) |
With the insertion of section 28A(2), an order u/s. 28A(2) is not revisable u/s.25.—Therefore when order is passed by a District Judge u/s. 28A(2), sec. 25 does not confer any jurisdiction against such order. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310. |
Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi | 35 DLR (AD) 310 |
Section 33 |
Question is whether section 144 of the C.P. Code is available to a Court of
Small Causes.
|
Sayeb Ali Vs. Sree Gopal Chandra Das and others | 32 DLR (AD) 212 |
Section 33 |
Question is whether section 144 of the C.P. Code is available to a Court of
Small Causes.
|
Sayeb Ali Vs. Sree Gopal Chandra Das and others | 32 DLR (AD) 212 |