Bangladesh Legal Proceeding Order, 1972

 

Article 2-

It is whether deposit of rent in the Office of the Controller is a legal proceeding.

According to section 2 of the Order, legal proceeding includes suit, case, prosecution, appeal, revision and review.

Owning of houses more than one is no ground to hold that the premises in the suit is not required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord and to dismiss the suit instituted for evicting the tenants from the suit premises on that ground.

Md Osman vs Fatema Khatoon 41 DLR 270.

Article 2-

Deposit of rent in the office of the House Rent Controller is not an institution of a case within the meaning of Article 2 of PO No. 12 of 1972 as the House Rent Controller does not decide the dispute between landlord and tenant. The Controller is a mere conduit pipe.

Deposit of rent in the office of the Controller is not a suit, a prosecution, an appeal, a revision and a review, the question is: is it a ‘case’ within the meaning of section 2 of the Order? The Rent Controller receives rent like any other counter and he does not determine whether the allegations made in the application for deposit are true or false. The object in accepting such rent is to furnish evidence of tender as kept by the office of the Controller in order to decide the question of default in a properly constituted suit. In this view of the matter, the deposit of rent in the office of the Controller is not an institution of a ‘case’ as the Controller upon such deposit does not decide the dispute between the tenant and the landlord. In such a situation the Controller is a mere ‘conduit pipe’.

Md Osman vs Fatema Khatoon 41 DLR 270.

Article 2-

Deposit of rent in the office of the Controller by filling an application is not a “case” within the meaning of Article 2 of PO No. 12 of 1972.

Viewed from this angle also that the deposit of rent in the office of the Controller by filling an application is not a ‘case’ within the meaning of section 2 of the President’s Order No. 12of1972 and section 4 of the Order has no role to play in this case. In this respect the decision reported in 8 DLR 272 may profitably be referred to. Moreover, the intention of the law-makers to promulgate the Order was to enable persons to institute any legal proceeding which could not be instituted due to atrocities perpetrated by Pakistan occupation army disrupting the normal life and activities. The tenants in this case already having had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Controller cannot take the advantage of the President’s Order No. 12 of 1972.

Md Osman vs Fatema Khatoon 41DLR270.

Article 2-

Non-obstanate clause used in Article 2-Interpretation of construction of enacting part of the section-Area of operation of non-obstanate clause-Invalidation of existing law if inconsistent with the new enactment. Averments of the petitioner in paragraphs 14-16 of the plaint and Prayer No. (ii)- The suits must abate as they are hit by the mischief of Article 2.

Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmed Siddiky vs Bangladesh 40 DLR 331.

Article 2-

The whole suit does not abate­ the rest of the suit minus the averments in paragraphs 14 and 16 and prayer No. II of the plaint.

Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmed Siddiky vs Bangladesh 40 DLR 331.

Article 4(2)-

Government’s application under Article 4(2) of PO No. 69 of 1972 is not maintainable in view of the abrogation of earlier law by PO No. 90 of 1972 relating to the suits in Article 2 of the latter law. Inconsistency between two Articles-Two remedies not available.

Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmed Siddiky vs Bangladesh 40 DLR 331.

Article 4(1)-The Government of Bangla­desh is not a successor of the defendant, Province of East Pakistan. It substituted itself as a party by a legal fiction under Article 4(1) of PO No. 69 of 1972 and acquired a right to have heard the suit de nova, irrespective of whatever hearing took place before liberation of Bangladesh.

Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmed Siddiky vs Bangladesh 40 DLR 331.  

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.