Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(e) & 6 |
A deed of release being a registered document with promise to compensate in case the promisee suffers any loss is a kind of contrivance that comes within the broad spectrum of definitions of transfer under section 2, if not section 6 of the TP Act. Bangladesh vs Aziz Molla 44 DLR (AD) 90. |
Bangladesh vs Aziz Molla | 44 DLR (AD) 90 |
Section 3 |
Attestation of a document
|
Amanatullah and others Vs Au Mohammad Bhuiyan and another | 17 BLD (AD) 199 |
Section 3 |
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence
Act:
|
Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 |
Sections 3 & 130 |
Having considered the definition of 'debt' and the decided cases where ornaments were lying with the Bank could be considered as 'debt', and as such the ornaments lying with the Bangladesh Bank being recovered from Ms H Dey Jewelers are a 'debt' which could be claimed by its owners. Aloke Nath Dey vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner 56 DLR (AD) 66. |
Aloke Nath Dey vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner | 56 DLR (AD) 66 |
Section 5 |
According to Transfer of Property Act, a transfer means voluntary act of transfer by which real right in the property passes from one person to another. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act has not spelt out transfer in broad details; Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bakerganj Vs. Aziz Molla being dead his heirs : Md. Mozibur Rahman and others, 11BLD(AD) 247 |
Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bakerganj Vs. Aziz Molla being dead his heirs : Md. Mozibur Rahman and others | 11 BLD (AD) 247 |
Sections 5 and 89 |
A will is a document in which a person specifies the method to be applied
in the management and distribution of his estate after his death.
|
Noorjahan Begum and another -Vs.- Aminul Huq and others | 9 ALR (AD) 15 |
Section 11 (K) |
Termination of tenancy on ground of undesirability—
|
Mrs.Maria Kheshi Rozario Vs. Messers Hassan. Movies Ltd. | 9 BLD (AD) 129 |
Section 41 |
The ratio of judicial pronouncements is that for applicability of section 41 of the Act primarily two things must concur: (1) that the person, i.e. ostensible owner, who has no real title was clothed with the insignia of ownership with the consent, express or implied, of the real owner; and (2) that the person purchasing for value from the ostensible owner shall take reasonable care to -ascertain that his transferor has authority to make the transfer. At the time of making the purchase from Narayan Chakraborty plaintiffs were very much aware that their vendor's father was alive. The plaintiffs made their purchase without making reasonable inquiry to ascertain real ownership of the property transferrred by their vendor, nor did they take steps for ascertaining the correctness of the recital in the deeds in spite of being aware of the fact that real owner of the property was alive at the material time. Rabeya Khatun & others vs Moniruddin and others 8 BLC (AD) 121. |
Rabeya Khatun & others vs Moniruddin and others | 8 BLC (AD) 121 |
Section 43 |
Judgment sought to be appealed that it was primarily contended before the High Court Division from the side of the parties to the appeal how far the Court of appeal below was correct in applying the provision of Section 43 of the Transfer of property Act. Amal Krishna Chakrabarty vs. Sekender Mallik (Md. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 5ADC 61 |
Chakrabarty vs. Sekender Mallik | 5 ADC 61 |
Sections 44 and 47 |
Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act applies when owners who hold estate as tenants in common transfer a part of the estate; the share of each co-owner is proportionately reduced equally. If the shares are unequal there is a greater reduction in the greater share, and a lesser reduction in the lesser share. Zafela Begum vs Atikulla 16 BLC (AD) 46. |
Zafela Begum vs Atikulla | 16 BLC (AD) 46 |
Section 44 |
The Partition Act
|
Jahanara Hossain(Mrs.) =VS= Surajit Kumar Das | 8 LM (AD) 79 |
Section 44 |
The Partition Act
|
Jahanara Hossain(Mrs.) =VS= Surajit Kumar Das | 8 LM (AD) 79 |
Section 44 and 47 |
Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act applies when owners who hold estate as tenants in common transfer a part of the estate, the share of each co-owner is proportionately reduced equally. If the shares are unequal there is a greater reduction in the greater share, and a lesser reduction in the lesser share. In this case Wazuddin alone allegedly gifted .55 acre of land out of his share and accordingly, it is section 44, not section 47 as contended by Mr. Mahmudul Islam, which is applicable if the claim of gift by Hiba is found genuine. Under this provision, if one of the several co-owners transfers his share, the transferee stands in the shoes of the transferor. He acquires as against the other co-owners the same rights that of the transferee had, and is subject to any conditions affecting the share at the date of the transfer. The principle of this section is that of subrogation or substitution. ...Zafela Begum =VS= Atikulla, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 544] ....View Full Judgment |
Zafela Begum =VS= Atikulla | 11 LM (AD) 544 |
Section 47 |
Principle underlying section 47 has no application where transfer of the immovable property has been affected by person who had no such right at the time of transfer. Mst. Khaleda Rajia Khanun Vs. Mahtabuddin Chowdhury (1978) 30 DLR (SC) 27. |
Mst. Khaleda Rajia Khanun Vs. Mahtabuddin Chowdhury | 30 DLR (SC) 27 |
Section 52 |
Lis pendens in pre-emption proceeding
|
Md. Abdur Rouf and others: Vs. Ahmuda Khatun and others | 1 BLD (AD) 269 |
Section 52 |
Doctrine of us pendens—The sale of the suit land by the heirs of the original plaintiff during the pendency of the second appeal will be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens. Shangsharer Nessa and others Vs. Mafizur Rahman and others, 12BLD (AD) 195 |
Shangsharer Nessa and others Vs. Mafizur Rahman and others | 12 BLD (AD) 195 |
Section 52 |
The doctrine of lis pendens as in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is intended to maintain the status quo unaffected by the act of any party to the litigation pending its determination. If in spite of reconveyance to the original vendor subsequent to filing of the case seeking pre-emption, the preemption is allowed, then the principle of lis pendens also will be applicable in the preemption case. Ambiya Khatun and others vs Noor Ahmed and others 9 BLC (AD) 114. |
Ambiya Khatun and others vs Noor Ahmed and others | 9 BLC (AD) 114 |
Section 52 |
The appellant Bazlur Rahman transferred the disputed land to appellant Bushra Complex Ltd when there was no civil suit pending and, as such, the High Court Division committed error of law in holding that the transfer took place during the pendency of suit and was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Bushra Complex Ltd and another vs Syeda Sabera Khatun & others 10 BLC (AD) 76. |
Bushra Complex Ltd and another vs Syeda Sabera Khatun & others | 10 BLC (AD) 76 |
Section 52 |
The cause of action of the suits being all together different the principle of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has no manner of application inasmuch as in the earlier suits right to immovable property was not directly and specifically in question whereas in the present suit right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. Mohiuddin Khan vs Shihamul Haque 15 BLC (AD) 129. |
Mohiuddin Khan vs Shihamul Haque | 15 BLC (AD) 129 |
Section 52 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Abdul Gafur =VS= Md Muklesur Rahman | 12 LM (AD) 200 |
Section 52 |
It is also seen that appellant Bazlur Rahman transferred the disputed land to appellant Bushra Complex Ltd, when there was no civil suit pending. Therefore the High Court Division committed an error in holding that the transfer took place during the pendency of suit and was hit by the doctrine of lis pendence. Bushra Complex Ltd. 2. Mr. Bazlur Rahman vs Syeda Sabers Khatun (Mainur Reza Chowdhury 7j(Civil) 2ADC 83 |
Bushra Complex Ltd. 2. Mr. Bazlur Rahman vs Syeda Sabers Khatun | 2 ADC 83 |
Section 52 |
Transfer of assets of firm pending suit for declaration that firm stands
dissolved—Transferee acquires no right or interest in property.
|
Usman Vs. Haji Omer | PLD (SC) 328 |
Section 52 |
Lis pendens—Mutation proceeding was initiated after the filing of the pre-emption application hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. M Banik vs Nitya Ranjan 39 DLR (AD) 75. |
M Banik vs Nitya Ranjan | 39 DLR (AD) 75 |
Section 53(A) |
Held : We agree with the finding of the High Court Division that the petitioner Zubeda Ahmed did not acquire any title by way of gift from Hafiz Mohammad Ahmed who himself had no title but merely held power of attorney to transfer. [Para-3] Mrs. Zuheda Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT(AD)-32 |
Mrs. Zuheda Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 32 |
Section 53A |
On the promulgation of the President's Order No. 16 of 1972 the-property assumed the character of abandoned property and that as per provision of Article 10 of the President's Order No. 16 of 1972 the property vested in the government and that possession of the property in question though claimed by the respondent No. 1, but as was not established was with him on 28-2-1972 when PO No. 16 of 1972 came into force and that as no material has been brought on record whereupon it can be said that the possession claimed by the respondent No. 1 is of the kind of possession as contemplated by the provision of section 53A of theTransfer of Property Act, as such, possession of the respondent No. 1 of the property in question is not protected under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Government of Bangladesh vs KM Zaker Hossain and others 8 BLC (AD) 27. |
Government of Bangladesh vs KM Zaker Hossain and others | 8 BLC (AD) 27 |
Section 53 |
Had the transactions been the product of fraud, coercion or undue influence or had the transactions been not the product of Rativan's free will and that had the Heba-bil-ewaz deeds been not executed and registered by her without understanding the nature of the transaction and of being unaware of the contents of the documents, Rativan Bibi would, in the normal course of conduct and behaviour, have taken exception to both the transactions instead of that she is taking exception only in respect of one transaction i.e. the transaction which was made in favour of the defendant, and this shows lack of bonafide on her part and that she being influenced by some other interested persons, as contended by the defendant by the sons of Amzad, one of the sons of Rativan Bibi, instituted the suit. Mustafizur Rahman vs Md Amjad Hossain 11 BLC (AD) 195. |
Mustafizur Rahman vs Md Amjad Hossain | 11 BLC (AD) 195 |
Section 53C |
Registration Act
|
Kamal Miah & ors. Vs. Lakkatura Tea Co. Ltd & ors. | 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 109 |
Section 53A |
Where an agreement to lease is evidenced and the lessee is put in possession, there has been acceptance of salami and/or acknowledgment of receipt of money towards sale of possession, section 53A will be used as shield against the owner to oust the tenant. The lessee could defend the suit for ejectment. .....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 53A, 54 |
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum | 3 LM (AD) 46 |
Section 53A |
Suit of declaration of title in the suit land on the averments...(2) Suit for declaration of title under section 53 A of transfer of property Act as made by (plaintiffs) is not maintainable and no case has also be mad out for the claim of title on the basis of adverse possession. Bijoy Kumar Sarbabidya vs. Government of Bangladesh (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 5ADC 44 |
Bijoy Kumar Sarbabidya vs. Government of Bangladesh | 5 ADC 44 |
Section 53 |
—Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act makes an exception in favour
of the transferee in possession in respect of a document which requires
registration.
|
Mst. Ghulam Sakhina Vs. Umar Bakhsh | 16 DLR (SC) 38 |
Section 53A |
Respondent No. l claimed to pre-empt the sale on the ground that he became
a co-sharer by virtue of a decree which he obtained in his suit for
specific performance of contract.
|
Maleka Khatun vs Abid Ali | 39 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 53A |
The Transfer of Property Act has no manner of application in a case under the Succession Act. In every case it must be shown that the caveator, but for the Will, would be entitled to a right of which that Will would deprive him. Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon 42 DLR (AD) 133. |
Shubra Nandi Majumder vs Begum Mahmuda Khatoon | 42 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 53A |
The defendant being in possession of the suit land in furtherance of bainapatra is protected by the provision of section 47 of the Registration Act. Mir Abdul Ali vs Md Rafiqul Islam 40 DLR (AD) 75. |
Mir Abdul Ali vs Md Rafiqul Islam | 40 DLR (AD) 75 |
Section 53A |
Once the defendant obtained a sale-deed and continued in possession not on the strength of his bainapatra but on the strength of his sale-deed section 53A ran its full course and exhausted itself. Rafiqul Islam (Md) vs Mir Abdul Ali 44 DLR (AD) 176. |
Rafiqul Islam (Md) vs Mir Abdul Ali | 44 DLR (AD) 176 |
Section 53A |
Tenancy right—Whether it is protectable by the doctrine of part performance—The contention that a tenancy being merely a transfer of a "partial right in property" it could not be said to be a transfer of property within the meaning of section 53A TP Act was rejected. Though the right is only to enjoy the property still it is a right and the tenancy is a transfer of immovable property within the meaning of the said doctrine. Pradhip Das alias Shambhu & others vs Kazal Das Sarma 44 DLR (AD) 1. |
Pradhip Das alias Shambhu & others vs Kazal Das Sarma | 44 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 53A |
The respondent being in possession of the property on the basis of agreement for sale has the protection of the provision of section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Bangladesh and others vs Kazi Ashrafuddin Ahmed 55 DLR (AD) 16 |
Bangladesh and others vs Kazi Ashrafuddin Ahmed | 55 DLR (AD) 16 |
Section 54 |
Adverse Possession
|
Sree Santipada Datta being dead his heirs: Aranangshu Datta and others. v. Satish Chandra Das and others | 22 BLD (AD) 246 |
Section 54 |
That section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that sale would be complete even if the consideration money is not paid or is part-paid or part promised. He next submits that in the case of non-payment of full consideration money or part consideration, the vendor may sue the vendee for recovery of the consideration money. Satish Chandra Mondal vs. Ayjuddin Gazi being dead his heirs Amjad Gazi (M.M. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 4ADC 757 |
Satish Chandra Mondal vs. Ayjuddin Gazi being dead his heirs Amjad Gazi | 4 ADC 757 |
Section 54 |
The Transfer of Property Act
|
Md. Dabir Uddin =VS= Md. Moniruddin | 16 LM (AD) 57 |
Sections 54, 118, 119 and 120 |
High Court Division while exercising revisional jurisdiction approved the findings of the appellate Court below since there is no non-consideration and misreading of material evidence affecting the merit of the case–– The appellate Court below (whether concurrently or not) arrived at decision as the last Court of fact, no Court can interfere with such finding of factual aspect unless it is satisfied that said findings are perverse. In the instant case, the High Court Division while exercising revisional jurisdiction approved the findings of the appellate Court below since there is no non-consideration and misreading of material evidence affecting the merit of the case. Appellate Division also holds the view that since there is no perversity in the findings of the appellate Court due to non-consideration or misreading of material evidence on record, the revisional Court rightly arrived at a correct decision in appreciating and approving the decision of the appellate Court below. ...Lalmon Bibi =VS= Md. Delowar Hossain, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 610] ....View Full Judgment |
Lalmon Bibi =VS= Md. Delowar Hossain | 11 LM (AD) 610 |
Section 55 |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Abdus Daiyan Khan @ Babul(Md.) =VS= Abdur Rouf Bhuiyan(Md.) | 13 LM (AD) 145 |
Section 55 |
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
Rahima Begum =VS= Md. Zahidul Islam | 13 LM (AD) 617 |
Section 58(C) |
Section 58(C) of the transfer of property Act contemplates mortgage by conditional sale wherein it has been clearly laid down that where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgage property on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale. The law permits for such a document. Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rqfique Mridha & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-77 |
Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rqfique Mridha & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 77 |
Section 58 (c) |
If the condition for repurchase is not embodied in the document which
effects or purports to effect a sale, the transaction will not be regarded
as a mortgage. It comes that a transaction in which the stipulation for
repurchase is contained in a separate document cannot be a mortgage of any
kind because it cannot fall under any other category of mortgage as per the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. But it does not follow that if
the stipulation for reconvenyance is embodied in the same deed, the
transaction be taken as a mortgage.
|
Asek Elahi -Vs. Jalal Ahmed and others | 4 ALR (AD) 63 |
Section 58 (d) |
Deed of mortgage and out and out sale deed? If it is a mortgage deed a suit
for redemption is permissible.
|
Asek Elahi -Vs. Jalal Ahmed and others | 4 ALR (AD) 63 |
Section 58 |
Mortgage, mortgagor, mortgagee, mortgage—money and mortgage—deed as defined in section 58 of TP Act, 1882. HBFC vs A Mannan 41 DLR (AD) 143. |
HBFC vs A Mannan | 41 DLR (AD) 143 |
Section 58 |
Mere inadequacy of consideration is no ground to treat a document to be a mortgage. Somedullah vs Mahmud Ali 44 DLR (AD) 83. |
Somedullah vs Mahmud Ali | 44 DLR (AD) 83 |
Section 60 |
Right of redemption of a mortgage
|
Tafzal Ahmed Contractor Vs. Abdur Rahim and others | 16 BLD (AD) 160 |
Section 60 |
Transfer of Property Act [IV of 1882]
|
S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193 |
Section 73 |
The object of section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act is only to protect a mortgagee whose security has been diminished. The section does not lay down that if a mortgaged property is sold owing to failure to pay arrears of revenue or other charges of a public nature or rent due in respect of such property the only remedy of a mortgagee is to claim payment of his money Out of any surplus of the sale-proceeds. The section permits a mortgagee to take recourse to this section only when his security has been diminished on account of sale as contemplated by section 73. Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Khan Bahadur Khalilur Rahman (1973) 25 DLR (SC) 34. |
Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Khan Bahadur Khalilur Rahman | 25 DLR (SC) 34 |
Sections 105 and 106 |
Lease of immovable property is created under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and, as such, statutory notice must be given under Section 106 of the Act for termination of the tenancy. Without serving a notice. upon the tenant as contemplated by Section 106 of the T,P. Act, no suit for ejectment of a monthly tenant can be filed. Abdul Aziz Vs. Md. Abdul Majid, 14 BLD (AD) 147. |
Abdul Aziz Vs. Md. Abdul Majid | 14 BLD (AD) 147 |
Section 105 |
The defendants could not be evicted on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased with the death of the defendants predecessor and the tenancy was not heritable. There being no legal and valid ground for the eviction of the defendants, the suit must fail. Subash Chandra Talukdar and others Vs Abdul Sattar Chowdhury being dead his heirs: Ambia Khatun and others, 19 BLD (AD)17 |
Subash Chandra Talukdar and others Vs Abdul Sattar Chowdhury being dead his heirs: Ambia Khatun and others | 19 BLD (AD) 17 |
Section 105 |
The period for which the suit was brought, namely, 1401-1402 BS has already expired and the plaintiff had no subsisting leasehold right in suit fishery at the material time. Moreso, defendants 1-6 cannot be made liable for any damage done to the plaintiff by a third party, namely, defendant No. 7. The lease period having expired the plaintiff cannot also get any declaration of title against anyone including the defendant No. 7. Bangladesh vs Abdul Alim Sarkar 6 BLC (AD) 38. |
Bangladesh vs Abdul Alim Sarkar | 6 BLC (AD) 38 |
Section 105 |
Without giving valid notice the lease-hold right cannot be cancelled—
|
Jahanara Ahmed vs Md Abdul Quyum and others | 8 BLC (AD) 20 |
Section 105,106, 111, Paragraph 8 |
That a person continuing in possession after termination of a tenancy in his favour is also a tenant. It is on record that after the expiry of the period of lease the tenant is continuing in possession and is paying rent in the House Rent Control Case No. 367 of 1984 regularly. In that view of the matter, defendant is a tenant under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance and in that sense he is a statutory tenant. Rent Control legislation is a special law which gives a greater protection to a tenant against eviction so long he pays rent to the full extent allowable by this ordinance and perform the conditions of the tenancy. Abdul Aziz vs. Md. Abdul Majid (Latifur Rahman J)(Civil) 4ADC 458 |
Abdul Aziz vs. Md. Abdul Majid | 4 ADC 458 |
Section 105 |
Lease and licence distinguished—Procedure for eviction-different—
|
Mohammad Habibur Rahman Vs. Government oj Bangladesh and others | 2 MLR (AD) 411 |
Section 105 and 106 |
Monthly tenancy— Not heritable— Continuance of it depends upon personal
relationship—Section 116— Rights of tenancy on holding over—
|
Abdul Latif and another Vs. Abdul others | 3 BLD (AD) 37 |
Sections 105 and 106 |
The essential elements constituting a icase, arc the following; (a) the right must be one as to immovable property; (b) the right must be that of enjoyment of immovable property; (c) there must be a transfer of such right; (d) the right of transfer is an interest in property; (c) the transfer must be made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity; (1) the transfer must be one for consideration; (g) the consideration must be of the particular kind namely, premium or rent, as defined by the section, either or both of them. Abdus Sattar & Ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 170. |
Abdus Sattar & Ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das | 32 DLR (AD) 170 |
Section 105 |
The relationship between the lessor and lessee is a jural relationship, cautiously guarded by section 105 TP Act. National Engineers Ltd. vs Ministry of Defence 44 DLR (AD) 179. |
National Engineers Ltd. vs Ministry of Defence | 44 DLR (AD) 179 |
Section 105 |
A tenancy can also be created by oral agreement. The fact that no one actually saw payment of rent does not detract from the fact that the appellant was described by PWs as a tenant under the respondent. Narayan Chandra Rajak Das vs Md. Amjad Ali Miah & others 44 DLR (AD) 228. |
Narayan Chandra Rajak Das vs Md. Amjad Ali Miah & others | 44 DLR (AD) 228 |
Section 105 |
Heritability of a monthly tenancy—Maintainability of execution proceeding against the heirs of a deceased tenant —A monthly tenancy being a lease is an interest in an immovable property and a transfer of interest in the property—an incidence of heritability is easily discernible from the tenancy created either under a statute or a contract. Right in such a tenancy is ordinarily heritable, though this right is limited "to enjoy" and occupy the property only and the tenant is liable to be ejected. Pradhip Das alias Shambhu & others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others 44 DLR (AD) 1. |
Pradhip Das alias Shambhu & others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others | 44 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 105 |
BFDC is a lessee under the government in respect of the disputed stalls to run a fair price fish selling centre there and in pursuance thereof they appointed the petitioner as a commission agent to sell such· fish at those stalls. The Court is justified in holding that the petitioner is a licensee under the BFDC who has the legal authority to revoke such licence. Habibur Rahman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh and ors 51 DLR (AD) 39. |
Habibur Rahman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh and ors | 51 DLR (AD) 39 |
Section 105 |
Since a co-sharer of a vested property has a preferential claim to lease than the stranger, in the instant case, the petitioner having claimed right and title in the case land and being admittedly in possession, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Nidhi Ram Moni and others 54 DLR (AD) 14. |
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Nidhi Ram Moni and others | 54 DLR (AD) 14 |
Sections 105 & 106 |
Lease is created under section 105 and as such statutory notice must be
given under section 106 for termination of tenancy; else no suit for
ejectment of a tenant can be filed.
|
Abdul Aziz vs Abdul Mazid | 46 DLR (AD) 121 |
Sections 105, 106, & 111 |
Lease, creation of—Its duration—Lease is a right only of occupation of an immovable property for a certain time. Transfer from one person to another creates this right. A lease whatever may be its purpose or duration, year to year or month to month, is created only under section 105. This section does not say that a lease for an agricultural purpose or manufacturing purpose shall always be a lease from year to year, or a lease for any other purpose shall always be a lease from month to month. Section 111 shows different ways and grounds for determination of a lease—death of the lessee has not been mentioned as a ground for its determination. In the decision of this Court reported in 32 DLR (AD) 171 a distinction was made between a lease under section 105 and a lease under section 106 whereas these two sections do not appear to say so. Pradhip Das alias Shambhu and others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others 44 DLR (AD) 1. |
Pradhip Das alias Shambhu and others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others | 44 DLR (AD) 1 |
Sections 105, 106 & 111 |
Lease, creation of—Its duration—lease is a right only of occupation of an immovable property for a certain time. This right is created by transfer from one person to another. A lease whatever may be its purpose or duration, year to year or month to month, is created only under section 105. This section does not say that a lease for an agricultural purpose or manufacturing purpose shall always be a lease from year to year, or a lease for any other purpose shall always be a lease from month to month. Section 111 shows different ways and grounds for determination of a lease—sdeath of the lessee has not been mentioned as a ground for its determination. In the decision of this Court reported in 32 DLR (AD) 171 a distinction was made between a lease under section I 05 and a lease under section I 06 whereas these two sections do not appear to say so. Pradhip Das alias Shambhu and others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others 44 DLR (AD) 1. |
Pradhip Das alias Shambhu and others vs Kazal Das Sarma & others | 44 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 106 |
Observations that the notice under I 06 of TP Act having not been served by PW I, the landlord, was bad in law, are beyond the pleading and amount to making out a new case for the defendant. Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272. |
Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another | 40 DLR (AD) 272 |
Section 106 |
A benamdar is a trustee for the beneficial owner. A suit for eviction at the instance of the owner's wife and son in whose name the Kabalas stand is maintainable. Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272. |
Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another | 40 DLR (AD) 272 |
Section 106 |
A benamdar represents the real owner. A proceeding by or against the benamdar, although the beneficial owner is no party to it, is fully binding on the beneficial owner. Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272. |
Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another | 40 DLR (AD) 272 |
Section 106 |
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. 1 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. I 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—lease 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. |
Tajabunnessa vs Nazma Begum | 40 DLR (AD) 36 |
Section 106 |
Reagitating a point—When leave was granted with the tacit admission that the notice under section 106 of the TP Act was defective the Court cannot in fairness embark upon a fresh inquiry into the validity of such notice. The landlord-appellants having abandoned that point, they cannot be allowed to reagitate the same in the absence of the respondent. Zahura Khatun vs Rokeya Khatun 43 DLR (AD) 98. |
Zahura Khatun vs Rokeya Khatun | 43 DLR (AD) 98 |
Section 106 |
When a tenant denies the title of the landlord in the demised premises without any valid reason it operates as a forfeiture of his tenancy right and in such a case a notice under section 106 of the TP Act may be dispensed with. Solaiman (Md) vs Sufia Akhtar Alam being dead, her heirs Narjesa Rahamatullah & others 50 DLR (AD) 90. |
Solaiman (Md) vs Sufia Akhtar Alam being dead, her heirs Narjesa Rahamatullah & others | 50 DLR (AD) 90 |
Section 106 |
Without serving any notice under section 106 of the Act no tenant can be evicted. Abdur Noor and others vs Mahmood Ali and others 54 DLR (.4D) 67. |
Abdur Noor and others vs Mahmood Ali and others | 54 DLR (AD) 67 |
Section 106 |
Allowing more than one month's notice to determine the tenancy has not contravened any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. Santosh Kumar Das vs Hajee Badiur Rahman 54 DLR (AD) 93. |
Santosh Kumar Das vs Hajee Badiur Rahman | 54 DLR (AD) 93 |
Section 106 |
Premises Rent Control Ordinance
|
Sontosh Mukar Das Vs. Hajee Badiur Rahman | 10 BLT (AD) 59 |
Section 106 |
The petitioner having continued as a tenant in the remaining part of the demised premises after demolition of the front portion he will be deemed to be a tenant of whatever portion he occupies and there can be no manner of making the notice ineffective because of changes in the size of the demised premises. Also it cannot be said that because of demolition of two-third of the tenancy there was no tenancy at all. Sree Mukti Pada Shil Vs Golam Mohammad, 19 BLD (AD) 124. |
Sree Mukti Pada Shil Vs Golam Mohammad | 19 BLD (AD) 124 |
Section 106 |
Notice terminating tenancy
|
Alhaj Md. Solaiman Vs. Mrs. Sufia Akhtar Alam being dead her heirs: Narjesa Rahamatullah and others | 16 BLD (AD) 47 |
Section 106 |
A notice served upon a tenant with more than 30 days as contemplated by the agreement between the parties does not in any way prejudice the petitioner or suffer from any illegality or infirmity in the service of notice determining the tenancy and is in consonance with the terms of the agreement and the provision of law, inspite of the fact that the payment of rent was according to the English calendar month and only 15 days notice is re quired for determination and termination of the tenancy under the provision of the section 106 Transfer of Property Act. Santosh Kumar Das v. Hajee Badiur Rahman, 22 BLD (AD) 30. |
Santosh Kumar Das v. Hajee Badiur Rahman | 22 BLD (AD) 30 |
Section 106 |
The High Court Division held that the question of bona fide requirement was
not relevant since the transferable tenancy right was granted by the
landlord on receipt of salami.
|
Alhala Khatun(Most.) =VS= Rezia Khanam(Most.) | 7 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 106 |
It cannot be said that bonafide requirement of the premises by the plaintiff is a mere desire/wish since she has established her bonafide requirement by reliable evidence. Exception taking which the defendant tried to disprove the claim of the plaintiff as regards her bonafide requirement could not be established by evidence. Second plea of the defendant that in commercial area residential house cannot be constructed also does not stand to scrutiny in the background of the type of construction now-a-days as is being made both for commercial as well as for residential purposes in the locality where commercial activities are already in existence. It has also been established by the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, that the tenancy in question was terminated in accordance with law. Bulbul Begum vs Md Sanwar Belal and anr 8 BLC (AD) 97. |
Bulbul Begum vs Md Sanwar Belal and anr. | 8 BLC (AD) 97 |
Section 106 |
No possession having been given, no vested right was created and the lessee Abul Hashem Khan could not legally claim one month's, calendar notice under the provision of the lease agreement. The High Court Division, therefore, erred in holding that one month's calendar notice was required to be served upon Abul Hashem Khan before determining lease. Bushra Complex Ltd and another vs Syeda Sabera Khatun WBLC (AD) 76. |
Bushra Complex Ltd and another vs Syeda Sabera Khatun | BLC (AD) 76 |
Section 106 |
The learned Judges of the High Court Division made the Rule absolute on discussion and proper consideration of the facts and law involved in the case holding that a registered deed of lease of immovable property for 99 years could only be determined by service of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and such a lease deed cannot be cancelled in part and that partial cancellation of the lease deed by the respondent No.7 for non-construction of any building in the portion of the petitioner's land is not justified and warranted either by the lease deed or by law. Dr MA Yahia vs Md Abdul Quader 14 BLC (AD) 109. |
Dr MA Yahia vs Md Abdul Quader | 14 BLC (AD) 109 |
Section 106 |
Eviction of tenant– It appears that attornment by tenant as not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord’s rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required a notice 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in terms of lease by transferor land landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment. Attornment would, however, be desirable as it means the acknowledgement of relation of a tenant to new landlord. It also implies continuity of tenancy. ...M. A. Awal =VS= Md. Abdus Rashid Khan Chowdhury, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 127] ....View Full Judgment |
M. A. Awal =VS= Md. Abdus Rashid Khan Chowdhury | 10 LM (AD) 127 |
Section 106 |
The defendant forfeited their right to stay in the suit properties by denying the title of the plaintiffs and as such the contents of the notice or any purported facts are insignificant here. Because if someone denies title of the land lord, notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act may be dispensed with. Consequently the decision referred in 51 DLR 393 is not applicable here. On the other hand the case reported in 1 BLC AD 156 as reported by Mr. A.M. Amin Uddin has got semblance with the present case. ...Ramesh Chandra Das & ors Vs. Sureshwar Mazumdar & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 96 ....View Full Judgment |
Ramesh Chandra Das & ors Vs. Sureshwar Mazumdar & ors | 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 96 |
Section 106 |
The revisional power exercised by the High Court Division is discretionary
and is to be exercised to prevent of error of law occasioning failure of
justice–
|
Santosh Kumar Das =VS= Hajee Badiur Rahman | 5 LM (AD) 423 |
Section 106 |
The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1984
|
Intekhab Ahmed Khan =VS= Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury | 8 LM (AD) 178 |
Sections 106,107, 108. |
Unregistered argument one, was valid for one year only as per provisions of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and after the expiry of the period of one year the parties would be guided by the provisions of Premises Rent Control Act. 1991. Sub letters premises without the written permission of the landlord and on this ground alone the defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit premises. Hafiz Md. Shamsul Alam vs Musleuddin Ahmed (Md. Ruhul Amin, J)(Civil) I ADC 488 |
Hafiz Md. Shamsul Alam vs Musleuddin Ahmed | 1 ADC 488 |
Section 106 |
The learned Judge of the High Court Division clearly fell into an error in holding that the trial court had wrongly shifted the burden of proof of service of notice upon the defendant although the trial court on consideration of the both oral and documentary evidence, mentioned earlier, held that the tenancy in question had stood terminated on the expiry of chaitra, 1391 B.S. upon due service of notice under section 106 of the T. P. Act. Moreover in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents like postal receipts Ext. 5 and 5 A there was legal presumption of due service of notice in question upon the defendant and as such the trial court rightly observed that the defendant did not rebut such legal presumption of due service of notice examining his brother Mosharraf Hussain. Musammat Mohsena Kahtun vs M/s Habib Knitting Mills ors. (Mohammad Abdur Rour J) (Civil) 2ADC 136 |
Musammat Mohsena Kahtun vs M/s Habib Knitting Mills ors. | 2 ADC 136 |
Section 106 |
The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division, following the trial court, committed serious error of law in relying upon Ext. 1, a certified copy of the firisti, because a firisti is no evidence of the contents of the documents filed. Consequently, he wrongly held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Chandan Mondal @ Kushal Nath Modal vs Md. Abdus Samad Talukder (A. M.Mahmudur Rahman J)(Civil) 2ADC 192 |
Chandan Mondal @ Kushal Nath Modal vs Md. Abdus Samad Talukder | 2 ADC 192 |
Section 106 |
In the instant case pursuant to clause (4) above a notice dated 18.1.1974 was served upon the respondent-tenant determining the tenancy with effect from 28th day of February 1974 and though the period of notice dated 18.1.1974 determining the tenancy with effect from 28.1.1974 was more than period of 30 days contemplated by Ext. 1. |
Santosh Kumar Das vs Hajee Badiur Rahman | 2 ADC 217 |
Section 106 |
But from our reading of the provision of sections 18 of the Premises of Rent Control Ordinance it is very much clear that so long an ejectable monthly tenant continues to parent of the premises he can not be evicted but when the tenant fails to pay rent, he becomes a defaulter and he can be evicted after serving notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Most. Hamida vs Md. Majibur Rahman (Abu Sayeed Ahammed J)(Civil)2ADC 409 |
Most. Hamida vs Md. Majibur Rahman | 2 ADC 409 |
Section 106 |
The ejectment suit against a monthly non-agricultural tenant holding land for more than one year but less then 12 years the tenant is entitled to 6 months notice and that section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must be read as being subject to section 9 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act which gives the same right to a monthly tenant as to other tenants we hold that the High Court Division has not committed any wrong and illegality in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. M/s. Shahjhan Enterprise Ltd. Vs Meghna Petroleum Ltd. (Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury C J) (Civil) 2ADC 455 |
M/s. Shahjhan Enterprise Ltd. Vs Meghna Petroleum Ltd. | 2 ADC 455 |
Section 106 |
Although the scope of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet before interfering with any finding of fact of the trial court under section 25 of the said Act the High Court Division is to come to finding that such finding of the trial Court suffers from any error of law ........ (6) Md. Nurul Islam vs Md. All Hossain Miah ors (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J)(Civil) 2ADC964 |
Md. All Hossain Miah ors | 2 ADC 964 |
Section 106 |
Purpose of invoking the principle of eviction by title paramount one has to prove that he has been evicted by a third person and that the third person had a paramount title, superior to the title of his alleged lessor. It is not necessary that the person claiming paramount title must in fact evict the person occupying the premises but a threat of eviction only is sufficient to constitute such eviction in the eye of law if the person sought to be evicted attorn to the claimant because the claimant gets into possession through the lessee who become his tenant. It is true that in the eye of law actual eviction is not necessary and a mere threat of eviction is sufficient to constitute eviction by title paramount if the person sought to be evicted attorn to the claimant of paramount title. Sree Amulya Ratn Chowdhury ors.vs Sreemati Shaibalini Ghose (A.T.M. Afzal CJ)(Civil) 3ADC 619 |
Sree Amulya Ratn Chowdhury ors.vs Sreemati Shaibalini Ghose | 3 ADC 619 |
Section 106 |
The suit was filed are that premises in suit belonged to plaintiffs' predecessor Mir Baksha Miah and the said premises was let out to the defendants on November 14, 1960 at monthly rental basis. Kazi Md. Abdul Kuddus and another vs. Mst. Kaimon Bewa and others (Md. RuhulAmin J)(Civil) 4ADC168 |
Kazi Md. Abdul Kuddus and another vs. Mst. Kaimon Bewa and others | 4 ADC 168 |
Section 106 and 111 |
The learned Single Judge also considered the oral evidence of the parties and also the legal effect of filing of Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979 by the defendant and came to a definite conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Single Judge also found that there was no complicated question of title and relationship of landlord and tenant having been established decreed the suit. Bidhan Kumar Dev vs. Rabiul Alam and other (Latifur Rahman CJ)(Civil) 4ADC 281 |
Bidhan Kumar Dev vs. Rabiul Alam and other | 4 ADC 281 |
Section 106 |
That the defendant is defaulter because he paid the rent for the month of January 1986 but did not pay the WAS A charges as provided in clause 3(b) of the lease agreement Ext. 1. The appellate Court on the other hand found that no agreement for rent was entered by the plaintiff and the defendant and so there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and so Md. Belial and others vs. Mariam Hossain and others (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) 4ADC 587 |
Md. Belial and others vs. Mariam Hossain and others | 4 ADC 587 |
Section 106 |
Praying for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and also recovery of khas possession of the same. Dud Meah and others vs. Sayeda Hosena Khatun being dead her heirs (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) 4ADC 592 |
Dud Meah and others vs. Sayeda Hosena Khatun being dead her heirs | 4 ADC 592 |
Section 106 |
The petitioners were impleded as defendants with a prayer for their eviction from the suit premise alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit premise by the plaintiffs on the basis of a deed of agreement dated 26.10.1988 and that the defendants paid rents up to the months of August, 1993 and thereafter they did not pay the rent to the plaintiffs and became defaulters .Md. Siddiqullah and others vs. Sufura Khatun and others (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4ADC 691 |
Md. Siddiqullah and others vs. Sufura Khatun and others | 4 ADC 691 |
Sections 106,109 |
For ejectment of the defendants as monthly tenants from holding Nos. 13 and 12 respectively on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the owner. Khondker Ansar Ahmed & others vs. A.T.M. Monsur Ali Mallik & others (MM. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 4ADC 640 |
Khondker Ansar Ahmed & others vs. A.T.M. Monsur Ali Mallik & others | 4 ADC 640 |
Section 106 |
Since the respondent is not a defaulter as found by the S.C.C. Judge and as per approved plan (Exhibit-2) by the Sylhet Municipality for construction of the first floor over the existing ground floor of the suit shop, it is not necessary to evict the respondent from the ground floor of the suit shop. But the learned S.C.C. Judge without considering the above aspect of the case erroneously held that the plaintiff has been able to prove bonafide requirement and the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division after due consideration of the case of the parties, exhibits and deposition of both the parties rightly held that the appellant failed to make out a case of requirement. Nezma Khatun Chowdhury vs. Abdul Khaleque (Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain J) (Civil)5ADC 954 |
Nezma Khatun Chowdhury vs. Abdul Khaleque | 5 ADC 954 |
Sections 106, 107 & 110 |
Kabuliyat being a document executed by one party only, provisions of sections 106 & 110 will not apply to it. Nur Banu Vs. Noor Mohd. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 182. |
Nur Banu Vs. Noor Mohd | 35 DLR (AD) 182 |
Section 107 |
Lease of immoveable property—Whether valid lease may be created by an unregistered deed of lease — Section 107 TP Act provides that a lease of immoveable property for a period exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument—This implies that a lease for a period not exceeding one year may be made by an unregistered instrument — Even if a lease is created for a longer period by an unregistered instrument, it will be valid only for one year. Khodeja Begum and another Vs. Sagar-mal Agarwala alias Sambamal Agarwala and another, 7BLD (AD) 147. |
Khodeja Begum and another Vs. Sagar-mal Agarwala alias Sambamal Agarwala and another | 7 BLD (AD) 147 |
Section 107 |
Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable of the Property Ordinance,
1982
|
Bhawal Raj Court of Wards Estate =VS= Nahar Haider Nannu | 13 LM (AD) 506 |
Sections 107, 117 |
Remand the case–– It is well settled that the lower appellate Court
being the last Court of fact and since that Court found title and
possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land, same cannot be reversed
until and unless the findings are perverse in law–– The Title Suit
No.525 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff-respondents for declaration of title
and also for partition was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the
plaintiff preferred appeal being Title Appeal No.66 of 1989 before the
learned District Judge, Khulna which was ultimately heard by the learned
Joint District Judge and dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and
decree of the trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision
No.2626 of 1991 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule and
ultimately the rule was made absolute sending the case on remand with
direction upon the Court of appeal below to dispose of the appeal by giving
finding on Exhibit-1, i.e. patta dated 19.03.1937, deed of sale dated
19.10.1963 (Exhibit-2) and the possession of the suit land based on oral
and documentary evidence produced by the parties.
|
Abu Zafar Biswas =VS= Golam Rabbani Sheikh | 15 LM (AD) 522 |
Section 107 |
Plaintiff got the settlement as far back as on 15 Chaitra 1355 B.S which corresponded to March, 1948 but the Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 came into force on 20th October, 1949. As such its application in respect of the suit property does not arise at all. Mrs. Nirmala Bala Das vs Ganesh Chandra Dhupia (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J) (Civil) 2ADC274 |
Nirmala Bala Das vs Ganesh Chandra Dhupia | 2 ADC 274 |
Section 107 |
Lease of immovable property— Registration of the instrument of lease—
When necessary—Section 116-- Effect of holding over—
|
Khodeja Begum and another Vs. Sagarmal Agarwala and another | 7 BLD (AD) 147 |
Section 107 |
Admittedly the suit property was Non-Agricultural Property from before 1947 and the same is situated within Khulna Municipal Corporation. The defendants once claimed that they were monthly tenants under Srish Bhattacharjee and thereafter under his sons, Dhirendra and Birendra. They again claimed that they took settlement of the suit property by unregistered Amaldari from Dhirendra and Birendra on 17.05.1950. It is the settled principle of law that settlement of Non-Agricultural land within Municipality cannot be affected by unregistered document. The same must be affected by bilateral registered document executed by both the lessor and the lessee. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 came into force on 28th October, 1949 and according to defendants case they took settlement by unregistered amaldari on 17.05.1950 and as such the same is hit by section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Khandoker Ansar Ahmed & Ors Vs. A.T.M. Monsur A U Mallik & Ors 19 BLT (AD) 129 |
Khandoker Ansar Ahmed & Ors Vs. A.T.M. Monsur A U Mallik & Ors | 19 BLT (AD) 129 |
Sections 107 |
It provides that a lease for immovable property from year to year or for
any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only
by a registered instrument. In the absence of any registered instrument the
tenancy will be treated as a monthly one.
|
Haji Md. Mobarak Ali -Vs.-Haji Mofiz Boksh and others | 4 ALR (AD) 22 |
Section 108 |
Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works and others Vs. MIs. Eastern Industries (B. D.) Ltd. | 14 BLD (AD) 254 |
Section 108(e) |
Doctrine of frustration—Whether it applies to contracts only or to leases
also—
|
Azizur Rahman and others Vs Abdus Sakur and others, | 4 BLD (AD) 287 |
Section 108(B) |
Transfer of the Property Act
|
Abdul Halim Gaznabi =VS= M.M. Badsha Shirazi | 15 LM (AD) 529 |
Section 108(e) |
Doctrine of frustration— When applicable—Section 56 of the Contract
Act—
|
Azizur Rahman and others Vs. Abdus Sukur and others | 4 BLD (AD) 287 |
Section 108 |
Material defect in the property
|
Hazi Abdul Karim Vs. Sk. Ali Mohd | 11 DLR (SC) 313 |
Section 109 |
Attornment—contention that mere deposit of rent in the name of plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest did not ipso facto prove attornment by the defendant could not be considered as it is found that the question of attornment was not raised in the pleading or in the proceedings at any time. Shambh Nath Saha vs Alfazuddin Ahmed 41 DLR (AD) 27. |
Shambh Nath Saha vs Alfazuddin Ahmed | 41 DLR (AD) 27 |
Section 109 |
Attornment—
|
Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa | 6 BLC (AD) 115 |
Section 109 |
If the lessor transfers the property leased, the transferee acquires the right of the lessor and if the lessor so elects, the transferee shall be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property transferred. Since the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest in the suit property through Bidyanath whose title was confirmed by sole decree passed in Title Suit No. 102 of 1958, it cannot be said that the defendants are not tenants under the plaintiffs in the face of Ext.7, 8(a), 9 & I2(b). Khandoker Ansar Ahmed & Ors Vs. A.T.M. Monsur All Mallik & Ors 19 BLT (AD) 129 |
Khandoker Ansar Ahmed & Ors Vs. A.T.M. Monsur All Mallik & Ors | 19 BLT (AD) 129 |
Section 109 |
Rights of lessor's transferee.
|
Khondker Ansar -Vs.- A.T.M. Monsur Ali Mallik | 2 ALR (AD) 209 |
Section 111 |
When there is lease by registered instrument coupled with delivery of possession there cannot be any cancellation of lease by implication. Sudangshu Jaladash and others vs Shahabuddin 52 DLR (AD) 119. |
Sudangshu Jaladash and others vs Shahabuddin | 52 DLR (AD) 119 |
Section 111(f) |
Implied surrender— Surrender of an under tenancy right need not be in writing. It may be inferred from act and conduct of parties as well. Md Jashimuddin Kanchan vs Md Ali Ashraf 42 DLR (AD) 289. |
Md Jashimuddin Kanchan vs Md Ali Ashraf | 42 DLR (AD) 289 |
Section 111(g) |
There is no provision of law in determining a tenancy on the ground of a tenant becoming "an undesirable tenant" unless the tenant comes within the mischief of forfeiture under section 111 (g) of the TP Act. Maria Keshi D'Rozario vs Hasan Moises Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 135. |
Maria Keshi D'Rozario vs Hasan Moises Ltd. | 41 DLR (AD) 135 |
Section 111(g) |
In a case of forfeiture of tenancy for denial of title, written notice of lessor's intention to: determine the lease is not compulsory as the cause of action is the denial of the landlord's title resulting in determination of the tenancy. Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR (AD) 26. |
Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others | 54 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 111(g) |
Only requirement of clause (g) is that the lessor does some act showing his intention to determine the lease and there is no reason why the lessors election by way of a notice must be prior to the institution of the suit. In a case of forfeiture of tenancy for denial of title, written notice of lessor's intention to determine the lease is not compulsory and must be optional as the notice is not a part of the cause of action for such eviction and that the cause of action is the denial of the landlord's title resulting determination of the tenancy by forfeiture. Zohra Khatton & Ors. Vs. Ekamul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-171 |
Zohra Khatton & Ors. Vs. Ekamul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 171 |
Section 111 (g) |
In the case of forfeiture of a tenancy for denial by the lessee of title to the immovable property in the lessor, a written notice to the lessee of intention to determine the lease is not compulsory as the notice is not part of the cause of action for eviction. The cause of action is the denial of the landlord’s title resulting in determination of the tenancy by forfeiture. Muhammad Ishaque v. Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others, 22 BLD (AD) 8. |
Muhammad Ishaque v. Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others | 22 BLD (AD) 8 |
Section 111(g) |
Undesirable tenant — Provision for determining the tenancy — There is no provision of law for determining a tenancy on the ground of the tenant becoming undesirable unless he comes within the mischief of for- feiture under the T P Act Mrs Mana Keshi Drozano Vs Messrs Hassan Movies Ltd represented by its Man- aging Director, 9 BLD (AD) 129 |
Mrs Mana Keshi Drozano Vs Messrs Hassan Movies Ltd represented by its Man- aging Director | 9 BLD (AD) 129 |
Section 113 |
Default in payment of rent by the tenant—Whether such payment of rent in a lump makes the tenant a defaulter—Whether there is waiver and acquiescence of the default on the part of the landlord by acceptance of rent for several months in .a lump—A tenant making payment of rent in lump shall ordinarily be treated as defaulter unless there is a contract to the contrary or such payment is covered by waiver and acquiescence on the part of the landlord — Evidence shows that there was an arrangement between the landlord and tenant that karmachari of the landlord would come and collect the rent. This practice continued for 16 years — The consistent view of this Court is that waiver is a question of fact and is to be taken at the earliest opportunity and must be established on evidence — The defendant had made Out a case of waiver and acquiescence and the judgment of the High Court Division is set aside—Premises Rent Control Ordinance 1963 (XX of 1963) S18(5) Md. Golam Hossain Vs. Mst. Asia Khatun Chowdhury, 8BLD (AD) 36 |
Md. Golam Hossain Vs. Mst. Asia Khatun Chowdhury | 8 BLD (AD) 36 |
Section 116 |
'Holding over' and 'continuing tenant as a statutory right'.
|
Maria Keshi D'Rozario vs Hosan Moises Ltd. | 41 DLR (AD) 135 |
Section 116 |
Holding-over—Tenants continuous possession with landlord's assent creates an implied contract constituting a tenancy by holding—over. Such a tenancy cannot be created by tenant's continuance of possession alone—there must also be the assent of the landlord, which may be expressed or implied. It may be evidenced by acceptance of rent or by other circumstances. Where the lessor dissents there cannot be any holding-over. Absence of dissent will not necessarily imply assent, but from the tenant's continuous possession for a long period, without contrary indication from the landlord may constitute an implied assent. Implied assent is a question of fact inferable from the length of possession and other circumstance excluding an inference of landlord's dissent. Siddik Ali vs Nurun Nessa Khatun 43 DLR (AD) 3. |
Siddik Ali vs Nurun Nessa Khatun | 43 DLR (AD) 3 |
Section 116 |
Non—payment of rent whether extinguishes a tenancy — Non-payment of rent is no proof of non-existence of the tenancy and the tenant cannot question landlords title unless he discontinues tenancy and restores possession to the landlord — Once a tenancy is created, it will be presumed that it is continuing unless it is shown that it has ceased. Hake Abduls Sitar vs. Mohiuddin and others, 6BLD (AD) 224 |
Hake Abduls Sitar vs. Mohiuddin and others | 6 BLD (AD) 224 |
Section 116 |
Right of heirs of late tenant — A tenancy is not heritable — On the death of a tenant his heirs are not under any obligation to continue the tenancy, In the same way, the landlord is not bound to keep the lease alive — If the heirs continue to stay on they have been rightly held to be tenants by holding over. Hake Abduls Sitar Vs. Mohiuddin and others, 6 BLD(AD)224 |
Hake Abduls Sitar Vs. Mohiuddin and others | 6 BLD (AD) 224 |
Section 116 |
Holding over — Whether a lessee under an unregistered lease can hold over and continue as a tenant — A lease for a period not exceeding one year may be made by an unregistered document — If the lessee on the expiry of the lease period of one year continues in possession with the consent of the lessor, the principle of holding over will be attracted in this case — It is the possession of the lessee which is of fundamental importance in the case of holding over — Possession of a monthly tenant is also landlord’s possession — This possession is sufficient for bringing his case within the ambit of ‘holding over. Chorea Begum and another Vs. Sagarmal Agarwala alias Sambamal Agarwala and another, 7BLD (AD) 147 |
Chorea Begum and another Vs. Sagarmal Agarwala alias Sambamal Agarwala and another | 7 BLD (AD) 147 |
Section 116 |
When it is no tenancy by ‘holding over’ — Reading the letter and the notice of the respondent as against the appellant’s letter expressing willingness to pay rent with moderate increase, it is found that the respondent was in search of grounds for the appellant’s ejectment — The respondent gave a go-by to the previous agreement and demanded renewal of the tenancy on fresh terms and con-ditions in such circumstances requirements of holding over are not fulfilled. Mrs. Maria Kasha D’rozario Vs. Messrs Hassan Movies Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, 9BLD (AD) 129 |
Mrs. Maria Kasha D’rozario Vs. Messrs Hassan Movies Ltd. represented by its Managing Director | 9 BLD (AD) 129 |
Section-116 |
For declaration of title and recovery of khas possession–
|
Israil Kha & others =VS= Syed Anwar Hossain & others | 1 LM (AD) 277 |
Section 117 |
Section 117 excludes only agricultural lease.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Abu Shaikh | 35 DLR (AD) 31 |
Sections 118 & 119 |
Exchange—what it is—An exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties, but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money. A party to the exchange when deprived of the thing received in exchange has his remedy under section 119. A third party too can raise the question of title of a party to the exchange. Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others 44 DLR (AD) 86. |
Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others | 44 DLR (AD) 86 |
Section 118 |
An exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties, but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money. Therefore, transfer of ownership is a pre-condition for a valid exchange. When there is a question of title to be decided on the basis of an exchange deed, the party claiming title must prove that he had ownership in the property exchanged. Mst. Sahera Khatun and another Vs. Anwara Khatun and others, 13 BLD (AD) 171. |
Mst. Sahera Khatun and another Vs. Anwara Khatun and others, | 13 BLD (AD) 171 |
Section 118 |
The Easements Act, 1882
|
Munshi Firoz & others =VS= Ruhul Amin & others | 1 LM (AD) 434 |
Section 118 |
An exchange, value of which exceeds Tk.100/-, is to be registered–
|
Munshi Firoz Elahi =VS= Ruhul Amin alias Lablu | 5 LM (AD) 387 |
Sections 119 & 118 |
Exchange—what it is—An exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties, but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money, a party to the exchange when deprived of the thing received in exchange has his remedy under section 119. A third party too can raise the question of title of a party to the exchange. Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others 44 DLR (AD) 86. |
Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others | 44 DLR (AD) 86 |
Sections 122 and 123 |
It is seen from the evidence on record that the PWs except making general statement that Mohendra Kumar Nath did not execute the deed of gift and that the evidence of PWs being negative in nature relating to the execution and registration of the deed of gift by Mohendra Kumar Nath, the High Court Division was not in error in setting-aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Shushil Chandra Nath vs Shanjib Kanti Nath 12 BLC (AD) 131. |
Shushil Chandra Nath vs Shanjib Kanti Nath | 12 BLC (AD) 131 |
Sections 123 and 129 |
Gift by a Muslim of immoveable property — Section 129 of the Transfer of
Property Act is an exception to section 123 of the same Act — This
exception is available only to Muslims as to the transfer of property by
way of gift.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Aba Sheikh, being dead his heirs Md. Naimuddin and others | 3 BLD (AD) 1 |
Section 123 |
The consistent view of the apex courts of this Sub-Continent is that not only a gift under Mohammadan Law but also under the Transfer of Property Act, a gift must be coupled with acceptance and delivery of possession of the property. Mere registration of such deed of gift is not at all sufficient, something more has to be done for making a valid gift which is lacking in the present case. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works & another vs Anny Ansari 6 BLC (AD) 85. |
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works & another vs Anny Ansari | 6 BLC (AD) 85 |
Section 123 |
The High Court Division has rightly found that the suit is maintainable in its present form also found that the suit property was a part of joint property of the Hindu joint family which has correctly came to the hand of Govinda Banik through amicable settlement and that ejmali property situated in any part of the world may be brought in the hotch-pots of the suit according to Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1898. Provas Chandra Banik vs Naresh Chandra Banik 16 BLC (AD) 62. |
Provas Chandra Banik vs Naresh Chandra Banik | 16 BLC (AD) 62 |
Section 123 |
Appellate court below allowed the appeal in part holding that the deed was not acted upon since there is no evidence that possession was delivered to the defendant no.1. This finding is not correct. Where the instrument of gift has been registered, delivery of possession is not essential for the validity of a gift by a Hindu. ...Renuka Rani Mondol Vs Biswajit Mondol & anr, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 33 ....View Full Judgment |
Renuka Rani Mondol Vs Biswajit Mondol & anr | 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 33 |
Section 123 |
‘Youtuka’, that is, gift of immovable property made as consideration of
marriage at the time of nuptial fire is valid.
|
Md. Abul Hossain Khan. -Vs.- Prosenjit Kumar Shaha and others | 10 ALR (AD) 278 |
Section 123 |
The Hindu law
|
Tapash Kanti Majumder=VS=Sailandra Kumar Majumder | 9 LM (AD) 59 |
Section 129 |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
Ahammed Hosain =VS= Shahida Begum | 11 LM (AD) 604 |
Section 129 |
Provision of section 129 is applicable to Muslims only when transferring property by gift. Jabed Ali Vs. Abu Shaikh, being dead his heirs: Md. Naimuddin and ors. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 31. |
Jabed Ali Vs. Abu Shaikh, being dead his heirs: Md. Naimuddin and ors. | 35 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 136 |
It is not incumbent on the landlord to call and examine the postal peon who delivered the notice at the premises of the addressee. Haji Khabiruddin Ahmed Vs. Md. Salam Kabir (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 271. |
Haji Khabiruddin Ahmed Vs. Md. Salam Kabir | 34 DLR (AD) 271 |
Right of redemption of the mortgagor- |
The right of redemption of the mortgagor:
|
M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors | 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19 |
Pendente lite nihil innovature– |
Pendente lite nihil innovature–
|
Masudur Rahaman =VS= Nazrul Islam/ মাসুদুর রহমান (মোঃ) =বনাম= মোঃ নজরুল ইসলাম | 10 LM (AD) 207 |