Termination of tenancy—Position of legal representative of a deceased tenant—A tenant under the Ordinance is same as a lessee under the TP Act and the monthly tenancy is also a lease under section 105 TP Act, Tenancy has not been defined in the Ordinance, but it clearly falls within "lease'' as defined in section 105. "Tenancy" relates to "premises" which has been defined in the Ordinance. Lease covers all immovable property including a premises.
Lease is transfer of a right to enjoy an immovable property. Legal representative of a deceased tenant will be brought to the scene only to pay rent and not to inherit the deceased tenant's right to hold the tenancy for the purpose of occupying the premises as expressed in paragraph 8 of the decision reported in 32 DLR (AD) 171 are not correct as the definition of tenant also includes a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy. Pradhip Das alias Shambhu & others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others 44 DLR (AD) 1.

A person continuing in possession after termination. of a tenancy in his favour is also a tenant. Abdul Aziz vs Abdul Majid 46 DLR (AD) 121.

Definition of tenant occurring in section 2(8}—lt is the respondent who by his letter dated 7—12—83 informed the appellant that he was not ready to allow her to, continue as a tenant on the existing rent but demanded higher rent of Taka 4000 as against Tk.750 under the agreement, due to expire by 31—12—83. Maria Keshi D'Rozario vs Hasan Movies Ltd. 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Explanation. The word ‘premises’ includes not only a building or hut but also grounds, among other things Abdul Mutaleb Vs. Musammat Rezia Begum (1970) 22 DLR (SC) 134.

Whether rent includes WASA charge and non­payment thereof renders a tenant defaulter—
Whatever amount is paid by the tenant to the landlord In terms of contract for the amenities provided by the Land Lord in connection with use and occupation of the premises forms part of rent within the meaning of section 18(6). WASA charge not being payable to the Land Lord is not rent and non-payment thereof does not render a tenant defaulter and liable to eviction. Continental Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Alhaj Md. Ismail 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 141.

Payment of municipal tax — Whether the agreement that such tax for the premises would be payable by the tenant is void? —
By mutual agreement payment of municipal tax is payable either by the tenant or the landlord — Whatsoever is agreed to between the parties can be a term of the tenancy as no prohibition exists in the matter of payment of such tax — Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), S. 23. Meherunnessa Khatun Vs. Abdul Latif an4 another, 6BLD (AD) 279

Municipal tax or rate may, by arrangement, be paid either by the landlord or the tenant. Maherunnessa Khatun vs Abdul Latif 38 DLR (AD) 196.

Section IO merely prohibits the premium, salami, etc. and acceptance of rent exceeding one month's rent in advance without written consent of the Controller. Maherunnessa Khatun vs Abdul Latif 38 DLR (AD) 196.

What has been held in 38 DLR (AD) I explained—Tenant in occupation was compelled to pay arrears municipal tax which must be deducted from payment of rent due. Maherunnessa Khatun vs Abdul Latif 38 ·DLR (AD) 196.

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, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

S. 10(a)(b) Advance payment of rent for a premises hit by S. 10(b) of the Act—Agreement for advance payment of rent hit by S. 23 of the Contact Act.
Clause (a) of section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance prohibits the acceptance of any sum of money over and above the rent payable by a tenant. This clause has also made illegal even any claim or invitation of an offer for the payment of such some of money in the form of premium, salami or fine either when a tenancy is being created or renewed, or during its continuance. Under Clause (b) no one is allowed to claim or receive a payment of more than one month’s rent in advance.
Agreement for lease was void under section 23 of the Contract Act as its object was not lawful and that it having not been registered was unenforceable and also inadmissible in evidence.
The agreement to pay Tk. 19,200/- by way of advance rent was undoubtedly a part of the consideration of the transaction as defined in section 2(d) of the Contract Act. This contravenes the positive statutory mandate as provided in section 10(b) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.
In view of the unenforceability of the agreement the position is that the appellant is a monthly tenant who is liable to ejectment if he makes default in payment of rent as provided in section 18(5) of the premises Rent Control Ordinance. Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. Mohd. Hassan. (1979) 31 DLR (AD) 155.

Section- 10(1 )(a)(b) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance prohibits acceptance of any payment of any premium, salami, fine or any other like sum in addition to the rent exceeding one month’s rent of such premises as rent in advance. Admittedly the landlord received Tk. 2,300/- from the tenant as advance/security whereas he cannot take rent more than one month under the law and as such the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division correctly held that the agreement was void as it is hit by Section-lO of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. [Para-7] Md. Abdus Salam & Ors. Vs. Md. … Miah 7 BLT(AD)-323

Agreement contrary to law is void. Transfer of Property Act, 1882— Section 106— Notice terminating tenancy—
In the case .of a monthly tenant one month's notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act is sufficient. Rafique Sowdagar (Mohd) Vs. Haji Ahmed Mia Sowdagar. 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 410.

Section 13 makes it obligatory for the landlord to give a written receipt of payment of rent. Rule 6 of the Premises Rent Control Rules 1964 prescribed the form. Maherunnessa Khatun vs Abdul Latif 38 DLR (AD) 196.

The non-issuance of rent receipt by the landlord is the offence of the landlord himself-who refuses or fails to issue rent receipt to the tenant– It is clear that the non-issuance of rent receipt is an offence which has been made punishable with fine by this very provision of law. The refusal or failure to issue rent receipt is violation of law (section 13 of Premises Rent Control Ordinance) and as such it is undoubtedly an offence. To curb this type of offence the legislature willfully introduced this section 27 in the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. However, the non-issuance of rent receipt by the landlord is the offence of the landlord himself-who refuses or fails to issue rent receipt to the tenant. For this offence of the landlord his heirs or anybody else cannot be made liable. The person who commits the offence only is liable to be punished, no one else can be punished for the offence of other. The case filed under section 27 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance abated at the death of the landlord defendant. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and that of the appellate court below is hereby affirmed. …Dulal Kanti =VS= Tapan Singha, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 150] ....View Full Judgment

In the present case, exhibits ‘Kha’ and ‘Gha’ are indicative of good relationship between the parties. Hence non-filing of the rent receipts by itself will not be so material as from the evidence on record admittedly the unadjusted amount remains in the hands of the plaintiffs—the defendant having actually proved the payment of rent by oral and documentary evidences the trial court including the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division wrongly held the defendant to be a defaulter. I Para-16] Monaranjan Barua Vs. Mirza Masud Hossain & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-192

Adjustment of rent against security deposit — Whether can be allowed in a suit for selectmen?—On the tenant’s application within six months from the date of payment of security deposit the House Rent Controller can order adjustment against rents if the tenant so desires — Such application does not appear to have been made — No order exists adjusting the rents against the security deposit — This cannot be made now after the landlord instituted the suit for eviction of the tenants. Mosammat Rahima Khatun Vs. Abdur Rashid Bhuiyan and another, 5 BLD (AD) 77.

Default in payment of rent — When the tenant paid tax to the Municipality in compliance of a distress warrant, non-payment of rent to the extent of the amount of tax so paid whether will make the tenant defaulter? — Whether payment of taxes is adjustable against rent ? — Payment of arrear tax which. was paid to the credit of the previous owner is adjustable, if the application is made before the Controller at the option of the tenant when the Controller will be obliged to order the adjustment of any sum so paid or deposited in any other manner. Mst. Esarunnessa Bibi being dead her heirs Amjad Hossain and others Vs. Md. Amir Hossain, 6BLD (AD) 91

Provisions of law leave no room for doubt . that such payment of tax is adjustable and authorised by law. Esarunnessa Bibi vs Amir Hossain 38 DLR (AD) 1.

The petitioners, being defaulters, cannot get the protection of section 18(5) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance –
The High Court Division correctly found that the petitioners, being defaulters, cannot get the protection of section 18(5) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. We are of the view that by filing the review petitions the petitioners in fact are seeking rehearing which is not permissible in review. .....A.T.M. Nasiruddin =VS= Md. Abdul Khaleque, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 38] ....View Full Judgment

When a bonafide doubt or dispute arises as to who is entitled to receive the rent as per section 18 of the Ordinance, the rent may be deposited by the tenant within a fortnight of the date on which the rent becomes due or from the expiry of the time within which such rent is required to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 18. The question of bonafide doubt or dispute as to who is entitled to receive rent pre-supposes a dispute as to the ownership of the premises. Unfounded plea of bonafide dispute will not entitle the tenant to invoke the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Ordinance.
If after receipt of the notice of attornment from the plaintiff the defendant does not offer rent to the plaintiff and the latter does not refuse it, the deposit of rent in the House Rent Controller Case by impleading the transferee landlord will not save the tenant from default and ejectment. Abul Hossain Vs. Md. Islam, 15 BLD (AD)9.

Payment of rent in lump—A tenant paying rent of several months in a lump shall ordinarily be treated as defaulter unless there is contract to the contrary or such payment is covered by waiver or acquiescence on the part of the landlord. P.K Chakraborty Vs. A.P. Chowdhuiy and others, 1 BLD (AD) 19

Landlord and tenant — Tenant failing to pay rent due to supervening circumstances, war of liberation compelling him to leave the premises for fear of life — Tenant is not deprived of the protection under section 18(1). Kalu Mondal Vs. Begum Frilatunnessa, 1 BLD (AD) 207

Ejectment of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent — Protection against selectmen — To avail the protection against ejectment, the tenant was required to deposit rents of every month within. 15th of the following month, even after termination of the tenancy. Nowab Mean . Vs. Nur Nahar. Begum, 4 BLD (AD) 74

Time limit for payment of rent — Whether can be varied except by a written contract — No implied contract can be said to have been created simply by payment and acceptance of rents for several months at a time — Such irregular payment also did not constitute an waiver of the right to receive payment as laid down in the statute — In the absence of a written contract non-payment of rent within the 15th day of the month next following that for which rent is payable shall make the tenant a defaulter. M/s. A. Hoque and Co. and another Vs. Al-haj Zakir Hossàin, 4 BLD (AD) 298

Maintainability of rent deposit case — Whether deposit of rent without cost of transmission by money order is a valid deposit — Simple deposit of the amount of rent without depositing the cost of transmission by postal money orders cannot be considered to be a valid deposit — Such case is not maintainable. Mir M.A. Razzaque and others Vs. Md. Abdul Hai Patwari, 5 BLD (AD) 97

Waiver of default — Default in payment of rent whether is waiver by subsequent acceptance of the rent for the period of default at a time — Mere acceptance of rent is not sufficient to constitute waiver — Whether there has been any waiver by the landlord must be gathered from the facts of each case —
Evidence must be given to establish plea of waiver after raising the plea in the pleading — Once a default occurs subsequent acceptance of the rent in lump by the landlord, does not in the absence of any positive proof of his intention to waiver such default, amounts to waiver so as to entitle him to the protection against the consequence of default, that is, eviction. M/s. Binning and Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Naziabad Properties Ltd; 6 BLD (AD) 354

Onus probandi —When onus is arbitrarily shifted and found not discharged — The plaintiff did not examine any independent witness in support of its case that the food supplied by the defendant’s canteen was not good — Trial Court arbitrarily shifted the onus on the defendant for proving its defence plea — The plaintiff therefore failed to bring its case home that he needed the tenanted premises for efficient management of the canteen — Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), S. 102. M/s. Channel Cinema Ltd. Vs. Chowdhury Golam Malek, 10BLD (AD) 82

Requirement of the demised premises for an adult son and a widowed daughter cannot be said to be a requirement of anyone else other than the plaintiffs because they are very much within his family. Nur Begum vs Dr Yusuf Ahmed & another 50 DLR (AD) 210.

Default made by a tenant in payment of rent within time specified in section 18 cannot be overcome by subsequent payment of rent to avoid eviction. Subsequent acceptance of rent by the landlord paid beyond the due date will amount to waiver. The plea of waiver must be. taken at the earliest opportunity. Messrs Binning & Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd vs Nasirabad Properties 40 DLR (AD) 89.

The· statutory restrictions relating to payment of monthly· rent within 15th day of the next month, if discharged by the tenant will disentitle him to the protection against eviction for default in payment of rent Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord without objection or protest is not sufficient to constitute waiver. Messrs Binning & Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd vs Messrs Nasirabad Properties 40 DLR (AD) 89.

The plea of waiver must be taken in his pleading by the tenant and at the trial where it should be raised as an issue. Binning & Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd vs Nasirabad Properties 40 DLR (AD) 89.

Leave was granted to consider the question whether the defendant—appellant was entitled to protection against eviction under section 18 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.
Appellant's case was that he took the plea of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel in his pleadings. Ext. A(45) shows the realisation of 18 months' rent in lump through Karmachari. Acceptance of rent by issuing monthwise rent receipts did not constitute waiver, it was contended.
The conclusion, even on the ratio of the case of MA Haque and the majority view ofBinning & Co. Ltd. emerges from the evidence that the defendant made out a case of waiver and acquiescence. The present case is an example of waiver and acquiescence established on evidence. Golam Hossain vs Asia Khatun Chowdhury 40 DLR (AD) 1.

Under section 19(Ka) of the Ordinance the Court is not to see whether the tenant bas paid rent within time under section 18 of the Ordinance but whether the tenant is depositing the rent within 15 days of refusal of the rent by the landlord. Rabeya Khatun vs Md Saidur Rahman 56 DLR (AD) 19.

The landlord is under legal obligation to prove that he needs the premises for bonafide requirement. Expansion of existing business run in a shop room adjacent to the room let out constitutes bona fide requirement. Zaher Ahmed vs Manik Sardar 53 DLR (AD) 63

Payment of rent in lump does not save a tenant from the mischief of the Ordinance making him a defaulter. Messrs Binning & Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd vs Messrs Nasirabad Properties Ltd 40 DLR (AD) 89.

When the tenancy itself was terminated, a sub—lease created by the tenant cannot be said to have subsisted. It appears that the High Court Division omitted to consider that when defendant No. I was admittedly a tenant of the appellants predecessor Abdul Aziz Bepari who inducted defendant No. 2 into the suit premises without the consent and knowledge of the latter such transaction was of the nature of sub—lease, though not binding upon the landlord who was unaware of it.. No question of giving consent to the sub—lease could, therefore, ever arise. Moreover, when the tenancy itself which was created in favour of defendant No. 1 by the appellants' predecessor was terminated, a sub­lease in favour of defendant No. 2 by the tenant cannot be said to have subsisted. A sub-leasee can be said to be trespasser in the circumstances of the case. Technicalities of law may sometimes prove to be of great value in winning even a bad case, but the defendant cannot hope to win on such technicalities alone. Tajabunnessa vs Nazma Begum 40 DLR (AD) 36.

Payment of rent­—Protection against ejectment—The provision contemplates an enquiry as to whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the protection from ejectment due to non-payment of rent. The enquiry becomes all the more necessary when the tenant comes with a positive case that due to some abnormal situation it was beyond his control to pay rent. Conditions like war of liberation should be read in the statutory provision as an exception clause to the sub-section. Kalu Mandal vs Begum Fazilatun Nessa 46 DLR (AD) 53.

Appellate Court did not consider the plaintiff's case of bonafide requirement—Finding cannot be termed concurrent. Channel Cinema Ltd vs Chowdhury Golam Malek 42 DLR (AD) 119.

Prayer for remand to the appellate Court for re-consideration of evidence of the parties—Prayer rejected—Court held that the cause of justice will be hampered instead of its being furthered if such prayer allowed. Channel Cinema Ltd vs Chowdhury Golam Malek 42 DLR (AD) 119.

Independent witness—­Plaintiff's failure to examine such witness—Trial Court's wrong shifting of the onus on the defendant when case's onus probandi was not discharged by the plaintiff himself. Channel Cinema Ltd vs Chowdhury GolamMalek 42 DLR (AD) 119.

What cause or causes under section 18(l)(c) of the Ordinance will satisfy the Court as to the landlord's bonafide requirement of the premises for allowing a prayer for eviction will depend upon the facts and circumstances —of each particular case. Channel Cinema Ltd vs Chowdhury Golam Malek 42 DLR (AD) 119.

The expiry of the period of lease or the fact that the interest of landlord has been transferred shall not by itself be a satisfactory ground to evict a tenant.
If the period of lease expires with efflux of time or if the interest of the lessor is transferred, that will be a good ground for eviction of a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act, but "shall not of itself be deemed tobe satisfactory cause within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Ordinance. A protection from eviction will be available to the tenant if he is ready and willing to pay rent to the full extent allowable by the Ordinance, notwithstanding the expiry of the term of lease and notwithstanding the transfer of interest of the lessor. Abdul Aziz vs Abdul Majid 46 DLR (AD) 121.

Bonafide requirement, ambit of—The plaintiff while residing at Comilla stated that he needed, the suit house at Dhaka for his own accommodation as and when he would come to Dhaka for treatment of serious ailments. It was not necessary for him to show that he was planning to shift· to Dhaka. It was enough if he needed the house for his own accommodation for occasional treatment of his serious ailments. As for the requirement of his family members besides the plaintiff himself, his son stated that he was doing business at Dhaka staying at the house of his sister and they had no other house except the suit house at Dhaka. This is a clear enough expression of a compelling necessity. Chand (Md) Miah Sawdagar vs SMA Rahman 43 DLR (AD) 225.

Provisions of law leave no room for doubt that such payment of tax is adjustable and authorised by law. Esarunessa Bibi vs Amir Hossain 38 DLR (AD) 1.

Meaning of the word "transfer" occurring in section 18(3) of the Ordinance—Significance of the prepositions "from" and "to" in the meaning of "Transfer" which shows complete cessation of the interest of the transferor. Begum Motia Akhtar Khanam vs Shawkat Ara and others 42 DLR (AD) 26.

Whether section 18(3) is applicable against the defendants is in question. ­It can come into operation only ifthe tenants have sublet or transferred their undertaking together with the premises to the third person. No case has been made out that defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have transferred their interest to defendant No. 3. The former have not gone away from the premises leaving it to the latter and in this view of the matter, the High Court Division has taken a wrong view of the law. Begum Motia Akhtar Khanam vs Shawkat Ara 42 DLR (AD) 26.

Whether the time limit for payment of rents as fixed in the statute itself can be varied except in accordance with a written contract—Whether such variation can be made by oral contract and secondly whether there can be existence of an oral contract that can be proved by subsequent conduct of the landlord and the tenant—Interpretation of sub-section (5) of section 18 of the Ordinance and the conduct of the plaintiff—respondent in granting month—wise rent ­receipts show that the landlord truly understood the express language and provisions of sub-section (5) in the right manner. No implied contract either can be said to have been created· simply by the fact of payment and acceptance of rents for several months at a time—Such irregular payment did not also constitute any waiver of the right to receive rents as laid down in the aforesaid sub-section­. Appellants having defaulted in paying rents within 15 days of the month next following that for which the rent is payable in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 18 of the Ordinance cannot escape eviction. A Haque vs Zakir Hossain 40 DLR (AD) 109.

Rent to be paid by the 5th of each current month according to the agreement­. Whether the appellant can claim the benefit of section 18(5). Maria Keshi D' Rozario vs Hasan Movies Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Onus to bring a case within the ambit of section 19 as to deposit lies on the tenant and conditions for remittance by MO and deposit with the Rent Controller are to be fulfilled before deposit is made—All these conditions having been fulfilled by the tenant, deposit made on 14-3-1984 is a valid one in this case. Maria Keshi D' Rozario vs Hasan Movies Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Landlords had in their hands unadjusted amount of money paid by the defendant tenant which could be easily adjusted towards payment of rent, the latter would not be held a defaulter and evicted as a tenant. Monoranjan Barua vs Mirza Masud Hossain and others 48 DLR (AD) 130.

When rent was deposited with the House Rent Controller within the statutory period of 15 days after the return of the First Money Order dated 8-2-1984 undelivered 'as refused' on 29-2-1984, the second Money Order dated 15-3-1984 was not necessary—Deposit of rent was made on 14-3- 1984 under section 19 of the Ordinance within 15 days from the return of the Money Order on 29-2- 1984. Maria Keshi D' Rozario vs Hasan Movies Ltd. 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Charges and rates which a tenant is usually liable to pay for the utilities such as electricity, water, gas etc, are not part of the rent of the premises. These payments are generally made to the authorities who provide for the said utilities. A landlord is not entitled to the said charges or rates for the simple reason that he does not supply the same to the tenant. Continental Corporation (Pvt) Ltd vs Al-Haj Md Ismail 48 DLR (AD) 90.

Deposit of rent — Whether deposit aft transfer by the landlord may continue by impleading the transferee landlord — Such deposit cannot be taken as a ground to resin ejectment by the transferee landlords — ho- pleading the transferee landlords in the Reni deposit case filed against the previous landlord is a clear device to avoid payment of t to the plaintiffs — They may not be entitled to rents prior to the transfer but they are entitled to it since the transfer and this having n been paid’ the tenants were defaulters. Basiruddin Ahmed and another Vs. Dhirendra Mohan Das and another. 4BLD (AD) 180

There is no statutory provision which requires that rent is to be paid or tendered personally by the tenant to the landlord. Al-Hajj Mirjahan vs Golden Biscuit Company 45 DLR (AD) 166.

S. 19 (2). Provisions of sub-section (2) of s. 19 have no relevance when the premises has been transferred to the clear knowledge of the tenant occupying the premises.
The deposit of rent in court in the name of the ex-landlord, after the transfer of the premises to the new landlord, offers no protection against ejectment for non-payment of rent. Basiruddin Ahmed & ors. Vs. Dhirendra Mohan Das (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 191.

Since the tenant paid rent lastly in 1987 and in the background of the tenant’s case that she offered rent in 1396 B.S. i.e. in 1989. the tenant was a defaulter while filed Miscellaneous cases. It may be mentioned Miscellaneous cases under section 19(1) of the Ordinance was filed in 1991 for depositing the rent of 1989. The learned Counsel could not place any material before us that after 1987 the tenant paid or offered rent of the years i.e. for 1988-1990. In that state of the matter the trial Court held that the tenant was a defaulter in the payment of rent but the appellate Court while setting aside the order of the trial Court did not reverse that material finding that the tenant i.e. the present petitioner is a defaulter. The High Court Division has rightly held that the Miscellaneous cases were not maintainable since tenant was defaulter prior to the filing of the cases under section 19(1) of the Ordinance. Mst. Hosne Ara Begum Vs. Md. Mozaffar Ahmed Meah 16 BLT (AD) 169.

Tenant was found unauthorized and illegal possessor of the suit premises– The learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sylhet and House Rent Controller by his judgment and order dated 07.04.1999 dismissed the Rent Deposit Case No.21 of 1997 on the ground that since the original tenant Ataur Rahman died,thus the tenant landlord relationship between the petitioners and opposite parties became seized.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Senior Assistant Judge and House Rent Controller, Sylhet, the petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.38 of 1999 before the Court of District Judge, Sylhet, who after consideration of evidence on record by his judgment and order dated 12.07.2001 allowed the miscellaneous appeal by reversing the decision of the House Rent Controller on the reasoning that the landlord and tenant relationship is heritable. Thus, after death of the father of the petitioners they became the tenants and are not the defaulter.
The same was heard and disposed of by a Single Bench of the High Court Division by judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 making the Rule absolute.
The plaintiff-respondent decree holder took possession by evicting the judgment debtor-appellants (judgment and order passed in Title Suit No.26 of 2012) and obtained delivery of possession on 15.09.2013 through the process of the Court in Execution Case No.06 of 2012. It also appears from the record that on 18.09.2013 the judgment debtor filed a petition for not confirming the execution process in the execution case. Fact remains the judgment debtors have been evicted from the suit premises. Admittedly, the appellants are not in possession of the suit land, who were dispossessed from the case premises on 15.09.2013 and as such the tenant and landlord relationship does not exist, which has already been terminated by the process of the Court. Thus, this appeal cannot proceed as the same has become infructuous. ...Masumur Rahman (Md.) =VS= Shahar Banu Begum(Mrs.), (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 5] ....View Full Judgment

The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1984
Section 20
Under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance a tenant is liable to be evicted (I) if he is a defaulter in payment of rent (II) if the landlord needs the suit premises for bona fide requirement and (III) if the tenant denies the title of the landlord. Even after expiry of the tenure of lease, the tenancy may continue as tenancy by holding over and the tenant is liable to be evicted only on the grounds stated above. …Intekhab Ahmed Khan =VS= Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 178] ....View Full Judgment

The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1984
Section 20 read with
The Transfer of Property Act
Section 106
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, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 178] ....View Full Judgment