Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1930 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 1, Clause (V) (Explanation) |
Lands within Tea Estate not governed by the Act. Clauses (V) of section 1 of this Act extend the Act to the district of Sythet except “Lands used for special cultivation or for purposes ancillary thereto so long as such use continues”. The provisions in Explanation to clause CV) provide that the words “purposes ancillary thereto shall include the letting out of portion of such land for the maintenance of the coolies working on such cultivation”. New Dhamat Tea Estate Limited Vs. Arjun Kurmi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 155 (157). |
New Dhamat Tea Estate Limited Vs. Arjun Kurmi | 35 DLR (AD) 155 |
Sections 22 and 33 |
Holding at fixed rate—application for pre-emption.
|
Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia | 3 DLR 358 |
Sections 30, 33 |
Right of pre-emption to the landlord.
|
Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia | 3 DLR 358 |
Sections 33 |
Benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
|
Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia | 3 DLR 358 |
Sections 33, 147(1)(c) |
Application for pre-emption not a proceeding under section 147(1)(c).
|
Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia | 3 DLR 358 |
Sections 34 |
Order under the section not appeal-able
|
Harmuz Ali & ors Vs. Mafiz Ali & ors. | 8 DLR 80 |
Sections 34(4) |
Complete usufructuary mortgage (kot-mortgagc) does not require to be attested by two witnesses and is a valid document if it is registered in accordance with the Registration Act. Karamath Ali Talukdar Vs. Md. Noaz Ali Talukdar (2967) 19 DLR 786. |
Karamath Ali Talukdar Vs. Md. Noaz Ali Talukdar | 19 DLR 786 |
Sections 65(d) |
Under-raiyat—holding over—Effect of.
|
Mafizallah Vs. Manai Ullah | 14 DLR 141 |
Sections 162 |
A suit under section 162 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act is, notionally at least, a Suit for the entire rent and the intention of the Legislature is that the suit is to deal with the whole of the rent for the period so that the tenant is not subject to a multiplicity of suits in respect of the same period. Maharaj Kumar Susansu Kanca Acharja Vs. Moyna Sundari (1954)6 DLR 66. |
Maharaj Kumar Susansu Kanca Acharja Vs. Moyna Sundari | 6 DLR 66 |
Sections 162 |
The word “dispossession” in Art. 3 of Schedule (I) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act implies the coming in of a person and driving out of another from possession. Suna Chand Sukia Boibaidhya Vs. Md. Eklash (1952) 4 DLR 392. |
Suna Chand Sukia Boibaidhya Vs. Md. Eklash | 4 DLR 392 |
Sections 162 |
In order that a case may come within the mischief of the said Article,
there must be actual dispossession of a raiyat or under-raiyat by the
landlord or somebody on his behalf.
|
Suna Chand Sukia Baibaidhya Vs. Md. Eklash | 4 DLR 392 |