Eviction of a person inducted by the monthly tenant—Whethera suit for eviction of such a person in the Small Cause Court is maintainable—When the defendant No.1 was admittedly a monthly tenant who inducted the defendant No.2 in the suit premises without the knowledge and consent of the latter such transaction was in the nature of a sub-lease. No question of giving consent to the sub-lease arises—When tenancy in favour of defendent No. I was terminated the sub-lease in favour of defendant No.2 cannot subsist—It would be merely a legalistic approach to say that the defendent No.2 became a trespasser and a Suit for eviction did not lie against him—Technicalities of law may sometimes prove to be of great value in winning even, a bad case, but when the very bottom of a case is struck off, no one can hope to score. Victory on such technicalities alone. Tajabunnessa and others Vs. Mrs. Nazma Begum and others, 7BLD (AD)205.

SCC Judge has no jurisdiction to go into the question of paramount title, and in doing so to set aside the decree of a civil Court obtained in a suit for specific performance of contract. The Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title except — incidentally. Sudhangsu Kumar Chowdhury vs Ali Hossain 46 DLR (AD) 151.

High Court Division fell into an error of law in holding that sec Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the order of cancellation of validation of the power of attorney. Whether the order and then the cancellation thereof are legally valid or not are questions germane to the subject matter in controversy and no extraneous to the suit. SCC Judge refused to exercise a jurisdiction which was lawfully vested in him and the High Court Division also took an erroneous view of the matter. Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder 42 DLR (AD) 244.

Plaintiff by a conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted without notice—his suit is not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes. Fazlur Rahman Shah vs Md Arifur Rahman @ Badsha 48 DLR (AD) 128.

In order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not, one has to refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the allegations make out a 'prime facie' case which falls well within the cognizance of a Small Cause Court, it will be immaterial what the defence is. Haji Kasimuddin Mandal being dead his heirs Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin Pramanik 48 DLR (AD) 205.

The Court of Small Causes is entitled to consider question of title incidentally but not when the question of title becomes an issue on law. Abdul Khalek Mia.. Appellant, Vs. Maya Debi & ors.. Respondents (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule
When a defendant refuses to attorn to the new landlord the latter has got the option to ask for his eviction either as a tenant continuing in the suit premises from before but not paying rent on demand or as an unauthorised occupant. In the present case, the plaintiff by conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as an unauthorised occupant liable for eviction without any notice. Such a suit is not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes in view of Section 15(1) read with Article 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Md. Faziur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. An- fur Rahman alias Badsha Chairman 16 BLD (AD)1 79

Generally suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand taka is triable by a Court of Small Causes. Subsection (2) of Section (2) of Section 15 read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes to entertain and try a suit for ejectment of a monthly tenant by his landlord. The plea of the defendant does not determine or change the forum of trial nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. In order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not, one has to refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the allegations in the plaint make out a prima facie case which comes within the ambit of a Small Cause Court, the defence plea will be immaterial. In the instant case, the suit is in essence a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. Once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the plaintiff he cannot be thrown out of the Court on the plea of tenant’s title on which the landlord’s claim does not depend. In such a case, the question of title to the disputed premises is not at all relevant. When it is found that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff, the defendant is precluded from setting up his own title and denying the title of the plaintiff in the suit premises. Haji Kasimuddin Mandal Vs. Md. Jalauddin Pramanik, 16 BLD (AD) 228.

read with clause (4) of Article I of the Second Schedule
A suit for possession of an immovable property cannot be filed in a Court of Small Causes. A suit for possession of an immovable property by evicting a licencee is to be filed in an ordinary civil Court. Aziz Ahmed Sarker and others Vs Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur, 17BLD (AD) 174

Suit for ejectment— Jurisdiction of small cause court—
In order to attract the jurisdiction of small cause court there must have been ifelalionship of landlord and tenant and the defendant must be a defaulter or in the alternative the plaintiff must be in the bonafide requirement of the premises, otherwise the plaintiff shall have the option to seek eviction of the defendant in the court of ordinary jurisdiction. Md. Fazlur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Arifur Rahman @ Badshah. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 258.

Suit for ejectment of licensee does not lie in S.C.C. Court—
Suit for recovery of possession of immovable property by evicting licensee does not lie in the Small Cause Court which should be filed in the ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. Aziz Ahmed Sarker and others Vs. Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 139.

Suit for eviction—Held: We have gone through the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court Division. The High Court Division has rightly taken the view that the title of the plaintiff to the suit property is itself clouded and the registered lease deed Ext. 1 was not acted upon in as much as admittedly there was no payment of rent in terms as the said lease deed. The suit therefore involved a serious question of title and in the absence of a proper suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession a simple S. C. C. suit under the circumstances does not lie. [Para-7] Bablu Mia Vs. Mrs Nurjahan Begum & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-223

Read with Article-(4) of the Second Schedule
In a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent it has to be alleged specifically since when the default has been made
—In the present case, the plaintiff by a conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as unauthorized occupant liable to be evicted without any notice. Such a suit was not maintainable in the court of Small Causes in view of section 15(1) read with Article (4) of the second schedule of The Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. [Paras-10 & 13] Md. Fazlur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Arifur Rahman 4 BLT (AD)-236.

When the party seeking to have the ex parte decree set aside is found willfully neglectful to comply with provision of section 17 (regarding deposit for the dues or furnishing security bond) even though the defect was brought to his notice—Ex parte decree cannot be set aside. Md Ebadullah Bepari vs Nikhil Chandra Das 37 DLR (AD) 174.

Proviso
Applicant required to make deposit of the amount due under the decree or give security for performance of the decree at the time of presenting his application—But nevertheless if the other party fails to raise any objection as to non fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the proviso hut sits over his right and the applicant’s application has been allowed by court he is equally guilty of omission like that of the applicant and having regard to the fact that if the applicant’s application under the proviso to section 17(1) is allowed, the other party is not going to be prejudiced in any way and hence the order granting the application under the proviso does not require to he interfered with. A.K. Murshed Ahmed...Appellant Vs. Md. Meher Ali and ors…Respondents (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 178.

Plea of title does not oust jurisdiction of S.C. court-Promissory estoppel—
Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court is not ousted merely on the raising of the plea of title by the defendant. Once tie relationship of tenant and landlord is admitted the defendant is stopped by promissory estoppel from raising the plea of title. He is bound to surrender the possession of the premises to the plaintiff on the termination of the tenancy. Afroza Bewa and others Vs. Md. Jalalauddin Pramanik and others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 305.

There is no absolute bar to the Courts of Small Cause to consider title incidentally while deciding a case between a landlord and a tenant. Any decision on title in an SCC suit does not preclude a suit for title. Under section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act the Court in its discretion may return the plaint only if it thinks that the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant depends upon resolution of a question of title and thus, the Court of Small Causes was quite competent to entertain and dispose of the suit where there has been no haze about tht relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant. Selina Begum vs Azizun Nessa 6 BLC (AD) 115.

High Court Division ought to have passed order in terms of section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act which provides that in a case where a question of title is involved it is the proper course to act under the said' section to return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. Ratan Chandra Roy vs Rehana & Rehana Ahmed and others 8 BLC (AD) 18.

The respondent before the trial Court filed an application for returning the plaint. As the suit involves a question of title and in view of the submission made on behalf of the respondent let the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. Narayan Chandra Barker vs Abdur Rahman 9 BLC (AD) 211.

In the instant case the suit is in essence and substantially a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. In such a case the question of title to the disputed premises is not relevant at all once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the plaintiff—the landlord cannot be thrown out of the Court of Small Causes on the plea of tenant’s title on which the landlord’s claim does not depend. [Para – 13] Afroza Bewa & Ors. Vs. Md. Jalaluddin Pramanik 4 BLT (AD)-278

S. 24 provides for an appeal only in certain cases under clause (II) or clause (h) of section 104 (I) C.P.C.. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

S. 24 provides for an appeal only in certain cases under clause (II) or clause (h) of section 104 (I) C.P.C.. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

Plaintiff instituted S.C.C. Suit No.8 of 1994 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna against Lal Mohammad-respondent herein, praying for a decree for ejecting him and for rent and mesne profit. After hearing the parties, upon considering the evidence and materials on record, the Senior Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna by his judgement and decree dated 26.04.2000 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No.3070 of 2000 under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act before the High Court Division and obtained Rule, which upon hearing the parties was discharged.
The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was a tenant under her predecessor. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. ...Begum Marium =VS= Zubaida @ Zubeda Khatun, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 11] ....View Full Judgment

High Court’s power of interference u/s. 25.
The trial Court from evidence drew a conclusion of fact which the learned Judge of the High Court Division reversed without positing any error of law. He merely drew a second conclusion of facts which section 25 of the Small Cause Act does not authorize him to do. The reversal of finding of fact by the learned Judge on this point cannot be sustained. Abdus Sattar & ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das & ors.(1980) 32 DLR (AD) 170.

S. 25 give the jurisdiction to the High Court Division to satisfy that a decree or order by S.C.C. was according to law. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

Decree by the Court of Small Causes—Ambit of revision—The propositions laid down in the judgment of the High Court Division are wide and speculative in that conclusions of fact reached by the sec judge in the instant case are not perverse; it is not a case where all matters have not been taken into consideration; it is not a case of mistrial; there is no mistake in placing the onus of proof. The question of preventing miscarriage of justice or gross illegalities does not arise. Abdur Razzaq vs Ansar Ali 43 DLR (AD) 212.

The petitioner was found as a tenant under the respondents to whom he had paid rent and as such he is debarred from setting up a claim of title in himself to resist the decree for eviction. Atiqullah (Md) vs Sanawara Begum and others 50 DLR (AD) 112.

High Court’s power of interference u/s. 25.
The trial Court from evidence drew a conclusion of fact which the learned Judge of the High Court Division reversed without positing any error of law. He merely drew a second conclusion of facts which section 25 of the Small Cause Act does not authorize him to do. The reversal of finding of fact by the learned Judge on this point cannot be sustained. Abdus Sattar & ors. Vs. Suresh Chandra Das & ors.(1980) 32 DLR (AD) 170.

S. 25 give the jurisdiction to the High Court Division to satisfy that a decree or order by S.C.C. was according to law. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

Service of notice u/s 106 T.P. Act—
Service of notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act received by the brother of the defendant under signature on the postal acknowledgement when no contrary is shown, has legal presumption. Mosammat Mohsena Khatoon Vs. M/s. Habib Knitting Mills. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 387.

Scope of interference in revision with findings of presumption about service of notice u/s 106 of T.P. Act by registered post—
Notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy sent by registered post has presumption of due service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Unless rebutted by counter evidence the findings arrived at the trial court upon consideration of the evidence of the postal peon cannot be interfered with under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Nurul Islam (Md) Vs. Md. Ali Hossain Mia being dead his heirs Md. Amir Hossain and others. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 81.

Suit for ejectment-Pending Title suit no impediment-
Upon proof of the tenancy a suit for eviction can well be decreed. That a suit for declaration of title or partition has been filed is no ground for returning the plaint of the S.C.C. suit. Anowarul Ferdous (Md) Vs. Most Umrne Salema Begum 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 134.

Effect of decree of subsequent suit on the decree of small cause court—
Court can take notice of subsequent events, no doubt, but the decree of subsequent suit instituted by the lessee against the Government has no bearing upon the decree of the S.C. Court where the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as monthly tenant is well established. Priti Rani Das Vs. Haran Chandra Gope being dead his heirs Gonesh Chandra Chose & others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 430.

Ejectment of tenant—
When the S.C.C. judge found the monthly tenant defaulter in consideration of the evidence on record and the plaintiff succeeded in establishing bonafide requirement which are upheld by the High Court Division in application under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 no interference is called for as the findings suffer from no legal infirmity. Sheikh Ahmed Vs. Noor Khatun and others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 319.

In any view, the scope of the scrutiny under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act is much wider and the revisional Court is permitted to reassess the evidence in the light of the pleadings of the parties and also may consider all other evidence on record and is not restricted in exercise of its revisional power as is limited under Section 115( 1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Md. Nasiruddin Vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman 20 BLT (AD) 222.

The notice of attainment dated 20-10-91 was in the nature of an intimation to the petitioner that after Aftabuddin’s death his heirs have sold the demised premises to the plaintiffs. The statement that the relationship between landlord and tenant stood severed after the death of Aftabuddin was made in view of the prevailing law that a monthly tenancy ceases with the death of either the landlord or the tenant. [Para-7] A. M. M. Azizul Bari Vs. Hazi Md. Amanullah & Ors 6 BLT (AD)-133

With the insertion of section 28A(2), an order u/s. 28A(2) is not revisable u/s.25.—Therefore when order is passed by a District Judge u/s. 28A(2), sec. 25 does not confer any jurisdiction against such order. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

With the insertion of section 28A(2), an order u/s. 28A(2) is not revisable u/s.25.—Therefore when order is passed by a District Judge u/s. 28A(2), sec. 25 does not confer any jurisdiction against such order. Abdul Khaleq Mia Vs. Maya Debi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 310.

Question is whether section 144 of the C.P. Code is available to a Court of Small Causes.
Section 33 of the Act says that Small Cause Courts and Civil Courts are distinct and should be always treated as different Courts.
Trial provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are available to a Court of Small Causes except to the extent the Small Cause Courts Act or Code of Civil Procedure excludes specifically the provisions of the Code from its application to a proceeding before a Court of Small Causes. It therefore follows that the trial procedure prescribed in the Code shall be followed in all suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes except to the extent excluded. Provisions of section 144 of the Code which has not been excluded is available to the Court of Small Causes and the power is to be exercised when language of section is attracted to the facts of the case before it. Sayeb Ali…Appellant Vs. Sree Gopal Chandra Das and others…Respondents. (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 212.

Question is whether section 144 of the C.P. Code is available to a Court of Small Causes.
Section 33 of the Act says that Small Cause Courts and Civil Courts are distinct and should be always treated as different Courts.
Trial provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are available to a Court of Small Causes except to the extent the Small Cause Courts Act or Code of Civil Procedure excludes specifically the provisions of the Code from its application to a proceeding before a Court of Small Causes. It therefore follows that the trial procedure prescribed in the Code shall be followed in all suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes except to the extent excluded. Provisions of section 144 of the Code which has not been excluded is available to the Court of Small Causes and the power is to be exercised when language of section is attracted to the facts of the case before it. Sayeb Ali…Appellant Vs. Sree Gopal Chandra Das and others…Respondents. (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 212.