Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Building In The Urban Areas) Rules 1972


Abandoned Property (Building In The Urban Areas) Rules 1972


RuIe—1O (4A)

legislation cannot give retrospective effect unless authourised by the parent
legislation. The new sub-rule 4A of Rule 10 neither says that it will have
retrospective effect nor is there any authority in President’s Order 16 of 1972
to make rules with retrospective effect. Therefore, the auction sale having
taken place before the insertion of the new sub-rule 4A, the sale would be
governed by the law as it existed then as sub-rule 4.

It is a matter of construction whether the
execution of a further contract is a condition of the contract or a mere
expression of a desire of the parties as to the manner in which the transaction
already agreed to will go through. In the former case, there is no enforceable
contract either because the condition is nullified or because the law does not
recognizes a’ contract to enter into a contract. In the latter case, there is a
binding contract and the reference to the mere formal contract may be ignored.
In such cases, refusal to execute formal contract cannot give rise to an action
for breach of contract.

Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary to the
Ministry of Works, 22 BLD (AD) 70.

Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh AIR 1939 FC 74; Sayeedur Rahman v. The Chief
Election Commissioner 17 DLR (SC) 23; Attorney General v. Vernazza (1960) AC
965; Purshottam v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1980 (SC) 1872; Hukam Chand v.
Union of India AIR 1972 (SC) 2427; Goshto Bihari v. Surs Estate Ltd. AIR 1960
Cal. 752; Namayya v. Union of India AIR 1958 AP 533; Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd.
v. Creet and others AIR 1933 PC 29.


Rule—1O (4A)

10(4A) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Rule (4), if the
building under auction is under the possession of a duly authourised person, it
shall, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the auction notice, be
offered to him at a price quoted by the highest bidder in the auction.

the instant case the question of retrospective effect of such amended Rule does
not arise at all. Firstly, the tender procedure was continuing and it was not
concluded. Secondly, during the pendency of the suit this amended Rule came
into force and thirdly, the plaintiff being a lawful lessee in the premises participated
in the auction and subsequently offered the hidest bid money to the defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 for purchasing the same. The sale by tender was not concluded and
the tender procedure was continuing and during pendency of the suit this
amended Rule (4A) came into force, the plaintiff is entitled to have the
benefit of this amended Rule, although it was not given any retrospective
effect. The plaintiff is claiming a right to purchase the property in the
instant suit and during pendency of the suit by operation of law such right was
given to him and as such he is entitled to have that right, although the Suit
was filed earlier.

MIs United
Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs MIs Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. and ors. 20 BLD (HCD)

Shyamakant Lal Vs. Rambhajan Singh, AIR 1939 Federal Court 74—Cited.