Section 3(17)

Bargader or Adhiar—When acquires the status of a tenant—He acquires the status of a tenant if he is admitted as a tenant by the landlord in any document executed by him or if he has been held by a civil Court to be a tenant.

Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being dead his heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70.


Occupancy right of tenancy when merged with superior interest—A person holding occupancy right in a land does not lose it by subsequently becoming jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure holder

Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being his deal heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70.


Merger—Whether occupancy raiyati holding merged with the tenure by purchase of the same by the co-sharer under-tenure holder—On account of purchase by co-sharer under-tenure-holder the raiyati holding did not lose its character of an occupancy raiyati holding—Subsequent purchasers acquired the same interest and not an under-tenure holding.

Mst. Noorjan Nessa Bewa and others Vs. Md. Mohsin Ali Talukder and others; 3 BLD (AD) 209.


Oral gift by a Muslim—Whether such gift of agricultural land without a registered instrument valid—Completion of oral gift—It takes place as soon as .a declaration of gift by the donor and acceptance of the same by the donee are made and delivery of possession follows—This completion cannot be destroyed by the requirement of a registered instrument under section 26C of the B.T. Act.

Jabed Ali Vs. Aba Sheikh, being dead his heirs Md. Naimuddin and others; 3 BLD (AD) 1.

.A.I.R. 1941 (Cal) 266; AIR. 1927 (Cal) 197; A.I.R. 1963 (Pat) 229; IL.R. 15 Cal 684; A.I.R. 1927 (PC) 22; 17 DLR 112; 1968 S.C:M.R. 509.


Istafa (surrender) of tenancy of agricultural land to landlord—If registered document required—In case of oral surrender no question of registered instrument is necessary.

Mast Sercztannessa and others Vs. Dii Mamud and others; 4BLD (7KD) 282


Deed of Heba-bil-ewaz, whether can have the effect of destroying the right of preemption.

Held: Deed of Heba-bil-ewaz cannot have the effect of destroying. the right of preemption nor can it affect right of pre-emption inasmuch as a party at his own will cannot suspend the operation of a statute.

Aiesuddin Mondal Vs. Md. Toyezuddin Dewan; 11 BLD (HCD) 433.


Abandonment—Circumstances constituting abandonment—The Collector got hardly anything to do in the matter except causing a notice published in the prescribed manner—If the landlord entered upon the holding by serving a notice the rayat may file a suit for recovery of possession—The rayat did nOt file any such suit as she did never return from India—In the circumstances the High Court Division rightly refused to disturb the finding as to abandonment.

Mrs. Maleka Khatun and others Vs. Md. Abdul Kashem and others; 5 BLD (A.D) 282.


As per provision of section 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, raiyat or under raiyat can voluntarily abandon residence without notice to his land-lord and without arranging for payment of rent—A finding of fact when not based on evidence or is based on utterly inadequate evidence and/or inconsistent with the evidence on record—High Court is justified to interfere in such matters in revisional jurisdiction.

Md. Abdur Rashid Khan Vs .Khudeza Bewa and others; 12BLD (HCD) 460

Sections—161 and 167

B.T. Act—Encumbrance—Sub-lease created by an under-raiyat having no occupancy right is not an in cumbrance and need not be annulled, but sub-lease created by a raiyat having occupancy right is an encumbrance and requires to be annulled under section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

Sunil Kumar Biswas Vs. Mohammad Idris and others; 1BLD (AD) 367

Ref: 16 DLR 110.

Capitalized Value—There is no definition provided to the expression ‘capitalized value’ in the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act—The submission that there are provisions for including future rents in compensations by way of capitalized value of the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, Lands in the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 have no basis.

Bangladesh Vs. MIs. Zeenath Textile Mills Limited and others; 8 BLD (AD) 189.



Removal of a teacher from service when valid—A teacher may be removed from service by holding a meeting within 7 days notice called for that purpose with the prior approval of the Board for removal of a Headmaster or a teacher of a secondary school as provided under the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore Regulations, 1973 as the same are mandatory—In its absence, the resolution, by the Managing Committee without complying with the same and without giving the teacher opportunity to be heard is in violation of the
principles of natural justice and is bad in law and has no legal effect.

Sardar Ahmed Au Vs. G. M. Au Baksha and others; 4 BLD (HCD) 309.

Ref: 28 DLR 668.