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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

House Rent Control Act, 1991:
Section 18
At the outset it may be mentioned that the House Rent Control Act, 1991 does not provide for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the premises is necessary for use of a son of the owner. ...Kazi Sanaul Karim Vs. Advocate Md. Mozammel Haque & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 108
An admission must be in clear, consistent and unambiguous terms:
An admission is an acceptance or endorsement of a claim or statement of the opposite parties which is against the interest of the party making the admission. Admission is an important legal evidence which does not require further prove and can be used against its maker. As such, an admission must be in clear, consistent and unambiguous terms. For making an admission there must have a specific claim or statement of the opposite party which can be admitted. ...Kazi Sanaul Karim Vs. Advocate Md. Mozammel Haque & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 108
The learned Senior Assistant Judge on the basis of a reply of D.W.1 to an extraneous question in cross-examination which was out of pleadings erroneously held the defendant a defaulter in paying rent and decreed the suit which is not tenable in law. ...Kazi Sanaul Karim Vs. Advocate Md. Mozammel Haque & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 108 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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