POURASHAVA ORDINANCE, 1977

Section – 13 (1) (d)

Removal of the Petitioner from the office of Chairman of Pourashava – moving a resolution of no confidence.

Resolution of no confidence against the petitioner was taken upon due compliance of law and since the resolution has been approved by the competent authority, the order of removal in respect of the petitioner removing him from the office of Chairman does not suffer from infirmity.

Mosharraf Hossain & Ors Vs LGRD & Ors 13BLT(AD)45

Section-21

It is the consistent of this Division that Section 21 of the Pourashava Ordinance, 1977 is directory and not mandatory. It is within the province of the delimitation Officer to take into consideration distribution of population as far as practicable vis-a-vis the territorial unity and administrative convenience and variation of population alone cannot he a ground to render
invalid a report of the delimitation finally published.

Miah Lutful Hossain Khashru & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-284

Premises Rent Control Act, 1991

The High Court Division observed that law permits eviction from the premises for construction or re-construction according to section 18 (Uma) of Premises Rent Control Act, 1991. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and there is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division.

Kishore Kumar Roy Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain & Anr 14 BLT (AD)15

Section —10 read with Section-18

We are of the view the High Court Division was in error in reversing the judgment of the lower appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court on the view that as the landlord had hand over possession of the premises in suit upon receiving an amount more than one month rent as advance, landlord forfeited his right of asking the tenant to hand over possession on the ground of bonafide requirement or seeking redress under the law in case of refusal by the tenant to hand over possession on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord.

Mst. Jahanara Khatun Vs. Md. Nurul Islam 16 BLT (AD)175

Section -33 read with Premises and Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 Section – 18

Section 36 of the Premises and Rent Control Ordinance, 1963, which was in force on 7.8.80, provides that-”Nothing in his Ordinance small apply to any premises owned by Government.” Section 33 of Premises Rent Control Act 1991 also contains similar provision. So late Samsur Rahman having been inducted a tenant by the Government 7.8.80, the appellants are not entitled to seek protection under section 18 of Premises and Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 or section 33 of the Premises and Rent Control Act, 1991.

M/S. Jalil Brothers & Ors. Vs. Humayun Majid & Ors. 14 BLT (AD) 263.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.