Appellate Division Cases
(Civil)
PARTIES
Bidhan Kumar Dev ……………………Appellant
-VS-
Rabiul Alain and other ………………….Respondents
JUSTICE
Latifur Rahman CJ
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
Kazi Ebadul Hoque J
JUDGEMENT DATE: 25th May 2000.
The Transfer of Property Act, Sections 106
and 111
The basic question is whether the plaintiff-landlord has been able to prove that the defendant-appellant was inducted by him on the disputed premises and whether a relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between the parties. In the present case from the averments in the written statement of the defendant-appellant it is palpably clear that the defendant admitted that he used to pay rents to the plaintiff and the rent was enhanced from time to time. All that the defendant stated in his pleading was that due to unfavorable condition he had to pay rents to the landlords and due to ill advise of his senior Advocate he deposited rent in House Rent Control ………………………… (8)
The learned Single Judge also considered the oral evidence of the parties and also the legal effect of filing of Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979 by the defendant and came to a definite conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Single Judge also found that there was no complicated question of title and relationship of landlord and tenant having been established decreed the suit …………………….. (8)
Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1998 (From the judgment and order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in Civil Revision No. 20 of 1988)
K.Z. Alam, Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record……… For the Appellant
Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Advocate, instructed By Sharifuddin Chaklader, A-O-R……………..Respondent Nos. 1-3 & 5-7
Respondent No.4 ………………………. Not represented.
JUDGMENT
1. Latifur Rahman CJ: This appeal following leave at the instance of the defendant-tenantappellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.97 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2(f of 1988, making the Rule absolute and decreeing S.C.C. Suit No.9 of 1986 of the Court of S.C.C. Judge, Sadar, Dinajpur.
2. The plaintiff-respondents filed S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 1986 in the Court of S.C.C. Judge (Assistant Judge), Sadar, Dinajpur for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises. The plaint case is that the suit premises ogiginally belonged to one Binodi Lai
Biswas and the plaintiffs acquired the same from the said Binodi Lai Biswas in exchange of their Indian properties. The aforesaid document was registered as deed No. 8088 on 12.5.61 at the Sub-Registry Office at Dinajpur. The plaintiffs first let out the suit premises to the defendant from March, 1972 at a monthly rent of Tk. 30/= according to the English Calendar on’ the basis of an oral agreement and subsequently the rent was enhanced to Tk. 60/- per month. The defendant regularly paid rent to the plaintiffs upto March, 1979 and thereafter defaulted. The plaintiffs were in bonafide requirement of the suit premises for their own use. The plaintiffs by serving a notice under Sections 106 and
111 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendant determined the relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant having not vacated the premises the suit was filed.
3. The defendant-appellant contested the case by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action; that the suit is not maintainable and that the S.C.C Judge had no jurisdiction to adjudicate into the matter. The defendant further asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit premises. Binodi Lai Biswas abandoned the premises and the house being vacant Bidhuti Bhusan Dev. father of the defendant entered into it just after partition in 1947 and lived therein with his family till his death upto 1971. Defendant’s father was neither a tenant nor a licensee under anybody. After the death of the defendant’s father the defendant and his brother continued living in the suit premises. Binodi Lai Biswas left for India and the plaintiffs in collusion with some influential persons created a power of attorney purported to have been executed by Binodi Lai Biswas in order to grab the valuable property. After the promulgation of Martial Law in 1975. local police being influenced by the plaintiffs threatened the defendant that he would be forcibly evicted if he failed to recognise the plaintiffs as landlords. In such circumstances, in order to avoid forcible eviction the defendant put his signature on a small paper, chirkut, recognising the plaintiffs as landlords. The defendant only once deposited Tk. 40/- with the rent controller in favour of the plaintiffs but subsequently withdrew the said case. The deed of exchange was illegally executed by the A.D.C. (Rev). Dinajpur in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had no right, title, interest and possession of the premises. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. In this case, the plaintiffs examined four witnesses and the defendant examined eight
witnesses and on consideration of the evidence on record the learned S.C.C. Judge
returned the plaint for filing before a proper court holding that the defendant did not attorn to the plaintiffs as landlord and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The S.C.C. Judge also held that the suit is not maintainable as complicated question of title was involved in the suit and returned the plaint for presentation in a Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
5. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court preferred
Civil Revision No. 20 of 1988 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division made the Rule absolute holding that the trial court was wrong in returning the plaint for filing in a proper court and decreed the suit.
6. Leave was granted to consider the following submissions of the learned Advocate
appearing for the appeal. 1. The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division erred in law in holding that the appellant was a tenant under the respondents without reversing the findings of the trial court that the appellant signed the chirkut showing payment of rent under coercion and pressure of the Kotwali Police and that he filed the application for deposit of rent with the Rent Controller under coercion and undue pressure of the local people who were friendly with the respondents. 2. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court Division was wrong in reversing the findings arrived at by the trial court on the basis of its own view of the evidence on record without there being any question raised by the respondents on the ground of misreading of evidence by the trial court. 3. The judgment of the High Court Division is neither proper nor in accordance with law and wrongly decreed the suit.
7. The learned S.C.C. Judge returned the plaint of the SCC suit for filing in a proper court as according to him the case involed a complicated question of title.
8.The ‘learned Single Judge found that the tenant-appellant did not claim title for himself rather he set up a case that Binodi Lai never executed any deed of exchange in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge found that the plaintiff had title on the basis of exchange deed which was validated by the A.D.C. (Revenue), Dinajpur on 3.2.82 after due enquiry. The basic question is whether the plaintiff-landlord has been able to prove that the defendant-appellant was inducted by him on the disputed premises and whether a relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between the parties. In the present case from the averments in the written statement of the defendant-appellant it is palpably clear that the defendant admitted that he used to pay rents to the plaintiff and the rent was enhanced from time to time. All that the defendant stated in his pleading was that due to unfavorable condition he had to pay rents to the landlords and due to ill advise of his senior Advocate he deposited rent in House Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979. Apart from the above averments, the learned Single Judge found from the chircuit, Ext. 4 acknowledging the payment of rent from October to November, 1947. The learned Single Judge also compared the signature of the appellant appearing “in Ext.5 series with Ext, 4 and found those to be of the handwriting of the appellant. Further from rent receipts, Ext. 5 series the learned Single Judge found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties. Further Ext. F series, entry of statement of Dinajpur
Pourshava clearly show that plaintiff No.l was the owner of the house and the defendant was shown as occupier. The learned Single Judge also considered the oral evidence of the parties and also the legal effect of filing of Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979 by the defendant and came to a definite conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Single Judge also found that there was no complicated question of title and relationship of landlord and tenant having been established decreed the suit.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Ed.
Source: IV ADC (2007), 281