Small Causes
Courts Act, 1887
Section-15 (1)
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
Section-15(1) 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.
Section-23
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
Section-25
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
Suit by landlord for eviction — ground of bonafide requirement.
The ground floor of the premises in question contains a number of shops and the
suit for evictions was filed to evict the tenant-defendant from one of the
ground floor shops on the ground of bonafide requirement of the second son of
the landlady to open up a business of his own. The trial court, as also the
High Court Division, found that two other shops in the ground floor fell vacant
during the pendency of the suit and new tenants have been inducted to carry on
business therein — The court can always take notice of events subsequent to the
suit — the second son of the landlady in his deposition has stated something
which has not therein in the plaint — the plaintiff failed to prove her
bonafide requirement of the shop premises. [Paras-2, 3 & 5]
Musammat Salma Vs. Md. Serajul Islam 2 BLT (AD)-92.