Appellate Division Cases
Md. Tobarok Hossain…………… Petitioner
Md. Fazlul Hoque …………………Respondent
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Judgment Dated: 13th January 2008
The Small Cause Courts Act, Section 25
The suit was filed seeking ejectment of the monthly tenant i.e. the petitioner herein and for recovery of rent due till disposal of the suit……………. (3)
The High Court Division has observed that the Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity as regard the finding of the trial Court that the defendant is a monthly ejectable tenant of the plaintiff in the premises in question and that he has defaulted in the payment of rent. ………………..(9)
Md. Mozaffar Hossain, Advocate instructed by Sufia Kliatun, Advocate-on-record ………………….For the Petitioner
Muhammad Nawab All, Advocate-on-Record ……………….For the Respondent
Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 1218 of 2007
(From the Judgment and Order dated May 23, 2007 passed by the High Court Division
in Civil Revision No. 2644 of 2005)
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ : This petition for leave to Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated May 23, 2007 of a single Bench of the High Court Division Civil Revision No. 2644″of 2005.
2. The civil revision was filed against the judgment and order dated June 14, 2005 the 1st Court of Assistant Judge and S.C.C. Judge, Bogra in S.C.C. Suit No. 07 of 2002 decreeing the suit.
3. The suit was filed seeking enactment of the monthly tenant i.e. the petitioner herein and for recovery of rent due till disposal of the suit.
4. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of default in the payment of monthly rent.
5. The tenant i.e. petitioner herein contested the suit denying the contention of the plaintiff as of his being a tenant under the plaintiff and also that he is a co-sharer of the holding i.e. the premises in question and that a partition suit is pending, that there was no agreement of tenancy between the defendant and the plaintiff and as such there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit with the finding, that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff and he has defaulted in the payment of rent since January, 2002.
6. As against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court the tenant i.e. petitioner herein moved the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.
7. The High Court Division on perusal of the evidence on record and in the face of agreement of verbal tenancy proved by reliable evidence and the fact of non-payment of rent by the defendant having had also been proved by the competent witnesses, the High Court Division on consideration those of held that the defendant entered into the premises as bharatia i.e. monthly tenant of the plaintiff.
8. As it appears from the judgment of the High Court Division that the petitioner in the revisional application reiterated the contention of his being a co-sharer of the property in suit and about pendency of a partition suit.
9. The High Court Division has observed that the Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity as regard the finding of the trial Court that the defendant is a monthly ejectable tenant of the plaintiff :n the premises in question and that he has defaulted in the payment of rent.
10. On the aforesaid findings the High Court Division discharged the Rule.
11. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the materials on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions made before the High Court Division in support of the petition for leave to appeal.
12. In the background of the materials on record we do not find any substance in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division since the same does not suffer from error or infirmity calling for interference by this Division.
14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),342