Section 3(17)-

‘Bargader’, ‘adhiar’ not a tenant-can however become a tenant. As to the position of a bargader, he has been excluded from the definition of a tenant under section 3(17) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. This definition has remained unaltered althrough. Under this section the bargader or adhiar is not a tenant, but he acquires the status of a tenant only in two circumstances: if he is admitted as a tenant by the landlord in any document executed by him or executed in his favour and accepted by him, or if he has been held by a Civil Court to be a tenant.

Shafiullah vs Sultan Ahmed Mir 37 DLR 193.

Section 3(17)-

For the purpose of creating lease of agricultural lands a written document is not necessary.

Hazrat Ali (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh and ors 47 DLR 246.

Sections 5(1), 52, 61, 86A and 195(e)-

­Applicability of the provision of Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of Patni tenures-A talukdar holds a tenure under a Zamindar, a Darpatnidar under a talukdar and so on. The same goes for a howladar and a Nim howladar and so on. The provision of Bengal Tenancy Act relating to tenures are, prima facie, applicable to Patni Laws. Bengal Tenancy Act cannot vary the relative rights of Zamindars and Patni talukdars as established by Regulation VIII of 1819 but if there are provisions in the Bengal Tenancy Act which are in the nature of supplementing the relationship without being in conflict with the Patni Laws, the provisions of Bengal Tenancy Act will apply in respect of Patni tenures.

Bangladesh vs Tobarak Ali Mia 43 DLR( AD) 130.

Section 22-

Explanation-A person having a right of occupancy does not lose it when jointly interested in the land as proprietor. But the ‘Explanation’ to this section is of fundamental importance in that it operates as an exception to the general principle of merger in sub-sections (1) and (2). It provides that if an occupancy raiyat acquires a share in the superior interest, that is, an estate or a permanent tenure, he shall not lose the raiyati interest. The doctrine of merger, under which the occupancy right disappears, is based on the commonsense principle that a person cannot be, at the same time, both landlord and tenant of the same premises.

Shafiullah vs Sultan Ahmed Mir 37 DLR 193.

Section 22(1)-

Complete merger is effected when the entire interest of the proprietor/ permanent tenure-holder and entire raiyati interest is united in the same person.

Shafiullah vs Sultan Ahmed Mir 37 DLR 193.

Section 22(1)(2)-

In case of a merger, the landlord holds only the superior interest and can possess the land as a tenant but he has to pay rent for the land in his khas possession “for use and occupation of the same.”

As provided in the Explanation, a person holding occupancy right in a land does not lose it by becoming a joint proprietor in the land.

Shafiullah vs Sultan Ahmed Mir 37 DLR 193.

Section 22(2)-

Provides for partial merger

Sub-section (2) provides for partial merger which takes place if a co-sharer landlord acquires the raiyati interest under him and his other co-sharer landlords. As to sub-section (3), it prohibits an ijaradar or revenue farmer from acquiring any occupancy right.

Shafiullah vs Sultan Ahmed Mir 37 DLR 193.

Section 26(c)-

Surrender by the tenant in favour of the superior landlord of the land in possession of the tenant not being a transfer in the true sense of the term, such surrender does not require registration and such surrender can be made by word of mouth.

Since this is not transfer in the true sense of the term and since this is an agricultural land and since this is merely on Istafa to the landlord, so the registered instrument is not necessary in case of such surrender. In the instant case simply oral surrender is enough.

Mst Seratannessa vs Saimon Bewa 37 DLR 217.

Section 26F-

Pre-emption under section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)­ – Whether the same can be allowed in favour of the pre-emptor applicant who admittedly owns more than 100 bighas of land exceeding the land ceiling prescribed in PO No. 98 of 1972-The question of land holding limitation upto 100 bighas of land does not arise as the Munsifs order was passed in 1967 when there was no law limiting land holding to 100 bighas. Appeal dismissed.

Azizur Rahman vs Bhayetullah 40 DLR (AD) 224.

Sections 86-

In order to constitute a valid surrender of a part of a holding there must be an arrangement between all the ttenants and all the landlords to that effect.

Mansur Ali and others vs Bangshidhari Thakur and others 46 DLR 645.

Section 87-

Abandonment-The appellant shall have no case if he relies on the plaintiff’s admission of the abandonment of the suit land in the last part of Poush, 1360 BS.

Afroz Rashid vs Fazlul Karim 40 DLR (AD) 79.

Section 87-

Landlord is entitled to treat the land in possession of the tenant as abandoned when the tenant ceased to pay rent thereof and which by service of notice under section 87 BT Act he can enter into land and take possession­. Tenant has a right of recovery of the land by filing Bengal Waqf Act-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dhaka (Managing Committee of the Recognised Non-Government Secondary Schools) Regulations-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore (Managing Committee of Recognised Non-Government Secondary School) Regulation a suit within 2 years from the date of the notice.

Malekha Khatun vs Md Abul Kashem 37 DLR (AD) 164.

Section 103B(5)-

Presumption of correct­ness of record of rights. In 30 DLR (AD) 81 it is held that according to section 103B(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act every entry in a record of right finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be until it is proved to be incorrect.

Abdul Hajez vs Lal Meah 38 DLR 327.

Section 167-

Service of notice when not proved by production of notice would not be fatal.

Mere non-production of the notice under section 167 or paper connected with the service of such notice by itself would not be fatal for the plaintiff’s case, if it could be proved otherwise that there was service of such notice and the encumbrance was, in fact annulled.

Md Shahadat Hossain vs Kohiladdi Shaikh 37 DLR 126.

Section 174-

Court to decide as to whether the said Luthfar Rahman was the caretaker of the petitioner because the nature of the auction-­purchase would depend upon the determination of this question.

Sourja Bala Devi vs Habibullah Sheikh 41 DLR 463.