Non–Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949

 

Non–Agricultural
Tenancy Act, [XXIII of 1949]


A
municipality is not a rent-receiver within the meaning of Non-Agriculture
Tenancy Act. A person holding land under a municipality is a tenant under it
and liable to pay rent.

Narendra
Nath vs Municipal Committee 39 DLR (AD) 16.

 

Section 2(5)–

“Non–Agricultural
Tenancy” explained–Applicability of the definition of
“Non–Agricultural tenant” and conferment of the status of
“tenant”– Tenant and trespasser distinguished–The definition will
apply prospectively so as to include the successor-in- interest of tenants.

Mahaprabhu
Ram vs Gopal Ram 42 DLR (AD) 154.

 

Section 7–

Before
commencement of this Act, tenancy right in a non–agricultural land was governed
by the Transfer of Property ‘Act, 1882 wherein the position of a tenant was
that of a tenant–at–will; his interest in the suit land was hot transferable,
nor heritable, nor was it capable of being bequeathed. Such rights were
conferred on a non–agricultural tenant, for the first time, under section 7 of
the Non–Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949; under this section certain classes of
persons holding non–agricultural land by lease were given non-ejectable right
in view of his ijara kabuliyat followed by continuous possession for a period
of twelve years prior to October 1949.

Md
Jashimuddin Kanchan vs Md Ali Ashraf 42 DLR (AD) 289.

 

Section 7(2)–

Under the
section a tenant must show that he had been holding the property in question
for a period of not less ‘than twelve years without any lease.

Gouri Das
and others vs ABM Hasan Kabir and others 55 DLR (AD) 52.

 

Section 7(2)–

Evidence
must be adduced to show when possession became adverse so that the starting
point of limitation against the party affected can be found.

Gouri Das
and others vs ABM Hasan Kabir and others 55 DLR (AD) 52.

 

Sections 7(2) and 88–

Commencement
of Act–Ambit and protection of these sections–­Benefit of section 7(2) and
protection under section 88 when not available–Limitation, question as to –On
the date of coming into force of the Act, the appellant was not holding any
land as a tenant and as such the protection of section 88 is not available to
him because the non­agricultural land which he was holding was not comprised in
any tenancy– The question of counting 12 years from 1934 does not arise. With
the death of R in 1939, his successor–in–interest became simple trespassers.

Mahaprabhu
Ram Vs Gopal Ram 42 DLR (AD) 154.

 

Section 24–

Application
for pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy
Act–Purchaser’s contention that the land sold has been divided by the Revenue
Officer with separate jama created for the land sold not being supported by any
valid order under law the question of actual separation of the jama by an order
of the relevant authority remains to be determined, after which the present
application can be finally disposed of.

Begum Khodeza
Akhter vs Hajera Khatun 37 DLR (AD) 212.

 

Section 24–

Section 24
of the Non­-Agricultural Tenancy Act provides for filing application for
pre–emption in respect of non­agricultural land within a Municipal Area. This
section has got no manner of application to case of agricultural land situated
outside the Municipal Area.

Abdul Majid
vs Satya Bhoma Nath 39 DLR 233.

 

Section 24–

Contiguous
owner cannot claim pre–emption. Under section 24 of the Non-­Agricultural
Tenancy Act a contiguous owner of land has no right of pre–emption.

Abdul Majid
vs Satya Bhoma Nath 39 DLR 233.

 

Section24–

Nature of
the land is determined by the purpose for which it is initially taken. Entry in
record–of–right that the land consists of hut, garden and pond cannot be taken
as showing that the initial purpose was non-agricultural.

Abdul Majid
vs Satya Bhoma _Nath 39 DLR 233.

 

Section 24–

“Non
agricultural land” appearing in the Non–Agricultural Tenancy Act and
“holding” in the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act– Whether right of
pre-emption is not extinguished by mere partition but by a partition of the
Tenancy itself as in SA & T Act.

Sagir Ahmed
and others vs Delwar Hossain and others 40 DLR 466.

 

Section 24–

Co-sharer
need be impleaded in an application for pre–emption under section 24.

Hosne Ara
Begum vs Mosammat Anowara Begum 37 DLR 154.

 

Section 24–

Right to
pre-empt– A party’s right to pre-empt when the decree for possession was put to
execution– Decree not executed– But the party remained in possession of a part
of the land–Effect.

Abid Ali vs
Maleka Khatoon 37 DLR 137.

 

Section 24–

The suit for
specific perfor­mance of the contract having been decreed and the petitioner
being already in possession of his portion of the land on the basis of contract
he has acquired a right in law and equity to pre–empt land transferred.

Abid Ali vs
Maleka Khatoon 37 DLR 137.

 

Section 24–

A co–sharer
in the land transferred and not a co–sharer in the tenancy is entitled to
pre–empt under section 24 of the East Bengal Non–Agricultural Tenancy Act.

Abid Ali vs
Maleka Khatoon 37 DLR 137.

 

Section 24–

The question
whether a document sought to be pre–empted is a real transaction or not can be
enquired into in a summary proceeding for pre–emption.

Abdul
Muhaimin Khan vs Bashiruddin 45 DLR 382.

 

Section 24–

Parties in
pre–emption application–In the absence of any specific provision in the Act as
to who is to be made parties, the procedural law, namely Order I, rule 3 or
Order I, rule 10(2) CPC will govern the field.

Golam
Mohammad vs Sailendra Nath Kanangoe 45 DLR (AD) 86.

 

Section 24–

It cannot be
said that a case for pre–emption will be bad for defect of party for not
impleading the co–sharer tenants.

Abdur Rahim
(Md) and others vs Md Shebul Mia and others 47 DLR 597.

 

Section 24–

Section 96
is confined to agricultural land and, therefore, a right of pre­emption under
this section cannot be claimed in respect of homestead land within a
municipality.

Mantu Faraji
alias Jamal Faraji and others vs Mahiuddin Khan 147.

 

Section 24–

The
petitioner can maintain the miscellaneous case under section 24 of the
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act even though lands and buildings of five kabalas
have been sought to be pre–empted in a single pre–emption case.

Khalilur
Rahman and others vs Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan alias Zinnat Ali Bhuiyan & others
50 DLR 311.

 

Section 24–

Non-Agricultural
land means a piece of land in joint possession and enjoyment without partition
which may form the tenancy or a portion of tenancy.

Syed Sad Ali
vs Bidhan Chandra Dev and ors 52 DLR 609.

 

Section 24–

Pre–emption
under section 24 of Non–Agricultural Tenancy Act is not confined to the land
situated within the municipal area. A non–agricultural land situated in a rural
area is also pre–emptible,

Karban Ali
Khan (Md) and others vs Asa/at Khan and others 53 DLR 176.

 

Section 24–

There is no
presumption of jointness in the Muslim Law. The presumption under the Muslim
Law is that the Muslim families are separate. The purchase made by the mother
and the sons are independent purchases and accordingly, the purchases made by
the pre­emptee Nos. 1–4, who are strangers, is pre­emptible excluding the
purchase made by the mother by the self–same kabala.

Karban Ali
Khan (Md) and others vs Asa/at Khan 53 DLR 176.

 

Section 24–

Sale of a
property takes effect from the date of the execution of the sale deed and as
such any subsequent agreement for re­conveyance of the property cannot defeat
the right of pre–emption.

Captain (Md)
Lutfar Rahman vs Md Abu Taher and others 53 DLR 193.

 

Section 24–

In
pre–emption proceeding one is deprived of one’s property through the coercive
process of the Court–Unless pre–emptor has a positive case of his being
co–sharer the court upon finding a prim a f ‘acie case of co–sharer is not
permitted by law to grant pre–emption.

Hiran
Chandra Dey and others vs Md Abdul Quyum and anothers 54 DLR (AD) 126.

 

Section 24–

After
sub–division of the holding and creation of new plots in subsequent survey, or
by mutation by the acts of parties, the previous co–owners in the holding
and/or the land cannot be deemed to still continue as such co­-owners.

SM Nasirul
Haque vs Omar Faruque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR 181.

 

Section 24–

The
submission that even after so many transactions since the final publication of
CS record of rights, and the long and exclusive possession by the present
occupiers on the basis of SA record of rights and/or mutation have not yet
terminated the original co-sharership in CS plot cannot be accepted.

SM Nasirul
Haque vs Omar Faruque Chowdhury 54 DLR 181.

 

Section 24–

A final
decree passed in a partition suit or amicable partition though separates and
divides the land for the purpose of possession but does not ipso facto
terminate co­-ownership in such land till subdivision of the holding and
distribution of rents takes place only in accordance with law.

SM Nasirul
Haque vs Omar Faruque Chowdhury 54 DLR 181.

 

Section 24(1)–

As the word
‘co–sharer’ always implies the existence of more than one person jointly
owning, similarly, such joint ownership may be in respect of land of one plot
or several plots.

SM Nasirul
Haque vs Omar Faruque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR 181.

 

Section 24(1)––

A co–sharer
loses his co-­sharership in the tenancy or holding by separating his jama
through a mutation proceeding and cannot apply for pre–emption.

Shah Alam
(Md) vs Md Shahidur Rahman and others 55 DLR 214.

 

Section 24(11)–

After
passing of the final decree in a partition suit it is effective between the
admitted co–sharers and for the purpose of a pre­emption proceeding where the
transfer is made by a co–sharer to a stranger, this question of execution of
the final decree between the co­sharers is not relevant and necessary,

Shofiuddin
Chowdhury (Md) vs Md Abdul Karim and others 52 DLR (AD) 41.

 

Section 24(11)(c)–

Pre–emptee
claimed to be a co–sharer in the holding as his vendor of the sale deed gifted
a portion of the plot under pre­emption by a deed of gift executed on 25– 7–85,
presented for registration on 12–2–86 after the execution and presentation for
registration of the sale deed under pre–emption–under the circumstances the
deed of hiba was a collusive document created for the purpose of defeating the
pre–emption case.

Sufi (Md) vs
Babupara (Alamnagar) Jame–Masjid 47 DLR 472.