Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 – Key Case Laws and Interpretations

Settlement Before the NAT Act 1949 Came Into Force

It is true that at present the suit land is situated within Gopalganj municipality and it is the case of the plaintiff that she along with her husband and other family members has been residing there by erecting huts and that she has also let out some portion of the hut to P.W. 3. The trial court believed the plaintiffs settlement and dakhilas Ext.1 series upon assigning proper reasons.

Plaintiff got the settlement as far back as on 15 Chaitra 1355 B.S., which corresponds 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.

Case Reference: Mrs. Nir Bala Das Vs. Ganesh Chandra Dhupi 7BLT (AD)-358

Section 7(2): Adverse Possession

Under the section, a tenant must show that they had been holding the property in question for not less than twelve years without any lease. Mere suggestion of uninterrupted possession for “12 years” or that the plaintiff had acquired “an absolute title” is not enough to raise such a plea.

  1. A claim of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded in the plaint.

  2. Hostile possession must be asserted.

  3. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity.

  4. Evidence must be adduced to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party is clear.

Case Reference: Sree Mati Gouri Das & Ors, Vs. A. B. Hasan Kabir & Ors. 11 BLT (AD)-87

Section 7(5): Mirash Bandubasta and Protected Tenancy

In view of the nature of the settlement as given to Abdul Hakim “Mirash Bandubasta” of the suit land, followed by continuous possession over 12 years by raising constructions, such settlement falls into one such class under Section 7(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.

The tenancy in question was created before 22.3.42, which continued on 20.10.49 when Act XXIII of 1949 came into force. Given Section 89A of the said Act, the plaintiffs accrued an interest to continue such possession as of right, which is protected from eviction.

Case Reference: Ramjan Mia & Ors. Vs. Idu Mia & Ors. 10BLT(HCD)-229

Section 24: Principle of Waiver and Estoppel

Respondent No. 2, the alleged vendor of the petitioner, having acquired right, title, and interest in the case land by virtue of the solenama, where the pre-emptor-respondent was a defendant—Held: The compromise decree having not been passed against the preempto,r the same did not affect her right of preemption.

Case Reference: Mil Siddiqur Rahman Vs. Most Jinnatunnessa & Anr. (CM) 7BLT (AD)-28

Section 24: Question of Limitation

The pre-emptor is entitled to make the application for pre-emption within 4 months from date of registration and not from the date of receipt of copy of sale deed.

Case Reference: Harunur Rashid Vs. Afroza Khanam & Ors. 9 BLT(HCD)-135

Section 24: Effect of Separation of Jama

The pre-emptor, his sister and brothers may be co-sharers inthe  original S.A. Khantian but not after separation of Jama in mutation case. They are no longer co-sharers in the new mutation khatians, opened separately in favour of their respective names. As such, the pre-emptor was not entitled to pre-empt the case land.

Case Reference: Hafez Abdul Karim Vs. Male Mohammad 8BLT(HCD)-144

Section 24: Pre-emption After Partition Decree

Because of the decree in the partition suit as there has been a cessation of co-sharership between the plaintiff and the defendant of the partition suit that ended in a final decree upon allotment of separate saham… the pre-emption sought for was not available.

Case Reference: Alfazuddin Ahmed Vs. Abdur Rahim & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)236

Section 24 Read with Section 85(2): Exclusion in Certain Lands

The application of section 24 NAT Act has been excluded by section 85(2) of the NAT Act in respect of the land mentioned in section 85(1) (a.b.c.d.e). Land of Dhanmondi R.A. falls within this category; thus, section 24 is excluded.

Case Reference: Kamrun Nahar Begum Vs. Nurul Alain Chowdhury & Anr. 13 BLT (AD)75

Section 24 and CPC Section 99: Single Application for Multiple Pre-emptions

Whether pre-emption in one single application for separate purchases by different sellers and purchasers be maintainable.

Both the trial court and the High Court Division on appeal allowed the respondents’ application for pre-emption. Held: The principle of section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 comes to the aid of respondent No. 1.

Case Reference: Alhaj Md. Kholilur Rahman & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-268

Section 24(1): Co-sharership as Basis of Pre-emption

By now it is well settled that for pre-emption under section 24(1) of Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act co-sharership in the land is material. A co-sharer in land becomes entitled to pre-empt under Section 24(1) if any portion of such land is transferred to a stranger.

Case Reference: Md. Shah Aim Vs. Alhaj M.S. Shahifur Rahman & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-189

Section 24(1) Read with CPC Section 2(2): Final Decree in Partition Suit

A final decree in a partition suit completely determines the rights of co-sharers. Thus, an application for pre-emption based on co-sharership after the final decree is not maintainable.

For background, see Partition Suits in Bangladesh Law.

Case Reference: Md. Shafiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Karim & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-165

Section 24(1) Read with SAT Act 1950 Section 117: Termination of Co-sharership

Even if land is subdivided or separated, co-sharership continues until subdivision and rent distribution are made under law. After such subdivision, old co-owners cannot claim pre-emption as co-sharers under Section 24(1).

See also the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 for detailed interpretation.

Case Reference: S. M. Nasirul Haque Vs. Omar Faruque Chowdhury & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-318

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.