Adverse possession–– A monthly tenant cannot claim adverse possession for his rented premises for completing twelve years continuous possession–– Possession of a monthly Varatia (tenant) cannot be constituted as acquisition of adverse possession. Defendant Nos.1-5 have neither filed any suit in respect of acquisition of adverse possession nor any suit for specific performance. It is settled proposition that time is the essence of contract. But after expiry of long time, defendant Nos.1-5 made no attempt to obtain a decree for specific performance. Thus, defendant Nos.1-5 are being in possession of the suit premises without having any title. The Appellate Court termed it as a monthly tenant as has been alleged by the appellant and we also hold the view that on the basis of such type of possession, there is no scope to acquire the statutory title like adverse possession. The appeal is dismissed without, any order as to costs. ...Mohammad Abdul Haque Chowdhury=VS=Mohammad Abed Ali Khan, [9 LM (AD) 133] ....View Full Judgment

Evicting from the Suit premises–– Defendant was rightly found to be a defaulter– Monthly rent could not be defrayed from the unpaid amount of the loan. The plaintiff would repay the loan from his income from whatever source. We are of the view that the defendant was rightly found to be a defaulter. The claim of the defendant against the plaintiff for money given by way of loan is still pending. That matter is separate and distinct from the present case before us. We find no merit in the instant civil petition for leave to appeal. .....A.K.M. Mahbubul Haque =VS= Chowdhury Motinul Haque, [3 LM (AD) 33] ....View Full Judgment

Receive rents from him by opening a separate khatian–– Writ-petitioner-respondent has obtained a decree declaring his title in the suit land from a competent court of law and that decree still stands. The government leave-petitioners though filed a suit challenging the said decree but that suit has already been dismissed. In the circumstances so long the decree declaring the plaintiff’s title in the land in question stands the writ-respondents are bound to mutate the land in question in the name of the writ-petitioner and also to accept rent from him. If these leave-petitioners ultimately succeed in getting the decree declaring the plaintiff’s title in the suit land declared collusive, fraudulent etc. by the appellate court or the higher courts they will be able to cancel the mutation of the land in question in the name of the writ-petitioner. .....Bangladesh & others =VS= Md. Abu Hasan Raju [1 LM (AD) 437] ....View Full Judgment

The tenants cannot be taken to be monthly ejectable tenants in the eye of law–– Accordingly this court holds that no landlord or house owner can take any money on the plea of selling possession without executing any registered instrument from any person/tenant. This mode of such transaction is prohibited by law, but it is being practised by the landlords from time immemorial. But despite non-registration of the deeds, the tenants cannot be evicted as ejectable tenants as the landlords have parted with their interest. The manner of receipt of such money is tantamount to proportionate selling of the ownership of the land and building but without any legal basis. The tenants cannot be taken to be monthly ejectable tenants in the eye of law, inasmuch as, they have acquired an interest in their respective premises. The landlords are defrauding the tenants by resorting to illegal practices by receiving sale price of possession of the shops from the tenants without executing registered deeds. Landlords can recover possession from them on repayment of the advance money with compensation from the date of receipt of the money and the compensation can only be assessed by a court of law. .....Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum, [3 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment