PREMISES RENT CONTROL ORBINANCE, 1963 (XX OF 1963)
Legal representative — Whether heirs of
a deceased tenant can be included as legal representatives for the purpose of
executing the decree — The definition of legal representative shall be given t
wide meaning to include the heirs of a deceased tenant who dies during the pendency
of an execution case started in pursuance of a decree for eviction of the
tenant from the suit premises — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Ss.
2(11) and 50.
Das Surma and others Vs. Prodip Das alias Shambhu aftd others, 9BLD (HCD) 162
32 DLR (AD) 170; 2 B.C.R.(AD)428; 1934 A11474; 38DLR(AD)97; — Cited.
Sections —9 and 10
Payment of municipal tax — Whether the
agreement that such tax for the premises would be payable by the tenant is
void? — By mutual agreement payment of municipal tax is payable either by the
tenant or the landlord — Whatsoever is agreed to between the parties can be a
term of the tenancy as no prohibition exists in the matter of payment of such
tax — Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), S. 23.
Khatun Vs. Abdul Latif an4 another, 6BLD (AD) 279
31DLR (AD) 155—Distinguished; 38 DLR(AD) 1; — Cited.
Adjustment of rent against security deposit
— Whether can be allowed in a suit for selectmen?—On the tenant’s application
within six months from the date of payment of security deposit the House Rent
Controller can order adjustment against rents if the tenant so desires — Such
application does not appear to have been made — No order exists adjusting the
rents against the security deposit — This cannot be made now after the landlord
instituted the suit for eviction of the tenants.
Rahima Khatun Vs. Abdur Rashid Bhuiyan and another, 5BLD (AD) 77.
31 DLR (AD)I 55 — Not applicable.
Sections — 14(b) and 18(2)
Default in payment of rent — When the
tenant paid tax to the Municipality in compliance of a distress warrant,
non-payment of rent to the extent of the amount of tax so paid whether will
make the tenant defaulter? — Whether payment of taxes is adjustable against
rent ? — Payment of arrear tax which. was paid to the credit of the previous
owner is adjustable, if the application is made before the Controller at the
option of the tenant when the Controller will be obliged to order the
adjustment of any sum so paid or deposited in any other manner.
Esarunnessa Bibi being dead her heirs Amjad Hossain and others Vs. Md. Amir
Hossain, 6BLD (AD) 91
Sections — 18(1) (5) and 19
of rent in lump—A tenant paying rent of several months in a lump shall
ordinarily be treated as defaulter unless there is contract to the contrary or
such payment is covered by waiver or acquiescence on the part of the landlord.
Chakraborty Vs. A.P. Chowdhuiy and others, 1BLD (AD) 19
31 DLR (AD) 183 — Cited.
Sections — 18(1)(5)
Landlord and tenant — Tenant failing to
pay rent due to supervening circumstances, war of liberation compelling him to
leave the premises for fear of life — Tenant is not deprived of the protection
under section 18(1).
Mondal Vs. Begum Frilatunnessa, 1BLD (AD) 207
31 DLR (AD) 183.
Sections — 18 and 19
Abandoned property — Building in urban
areas — abandoned premises let out by Government to private person on monthly
rent General Law of landlord and tenant will apply in respect of termination of
is no provision either in P.O. 16 of 1972 or in the Rules framed there under
laying down any provision for selectmen of any private allotted from the
premises in case the Government requires the premises bonafid in public
interest or on account of any default in paying monthly rents as such — In such
circumstances, there is no other option left with the Government as the
substituted landlord of an abandoned building but to take recourse to the
normal law of termination of a monthly lease and tenancy under action 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act read with the relevant provisions of sections 18
and 19 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance — In the absence of any specific
statutory provision providing for any special right of the Government to
summarily evict and eject a private allottee of a government building, the
normal rule of landlord and tenant will apply.
of Credit and Commerce international (Overseas) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh, 1 BLD
Section — 18(5)
Default—Default in payment of rent is
waived if the landlord accepts rent after such default made by the tenant — The
landlord cannot sue the tenant for ejectrnent on the ground of default after
such acceptance of rent.
Bhusan Chakraborty Vs. Dr. Shaukat Au Bhuiyan, 3BLD (HCD) 116
28 DLR443; 19 DLR (Dhaka) 775; 26 DLR342; — Cited.
Sections — 18(5) and 19
Ejectment of tenant on the ground of
default in payment of rent — Protection against selectmen — To avail the
protection against ejectment, the tenant was required to deposit rents of every
month within. 15th of the following month, even after termination of the
Nowab Mean . Vs. Nur Nahar. Begum, 4BLD
31 DLR (AD) 183—Cited.
Time limit for payment of rent — Whether
can be varied except by a written contract — No implied contract can be
said to have been created simply by payment and acceptance of rents for several
months at a time — Such irregular payment also did not constitute an waiver of
the right to receive payment as laid down in the statute — In the absence of a
written contract non-payment of rent within the 15th day of the month next
following that for which rent is payable shall make the tenant a defaulter.
A. Hoque and Co. and another Vs. Al-haj Zakir Hossàin, 4BLD (AD) 298
31 DLR (AD) 1 83; 33DLR (AD)55; — Cited.
Section — 18(5)
Maintainability of rent deposit case —
Whether deposit of rent without cost of transmission by money order is a valid
deposit — Simple deposit of the amount of rent without depositing the cost of
transmission by postal money orders cannot be considered to be a valid deposit
— Such case is not maintainable.
M.A. Razzaque and others Vs. Md. Abdul Hai Patwari, 5 BLD(AD)97
Section — 18
Bonafide requirement — Elements to
determine it — Merely because a person has got a house other then the house
in suit it cannot be held that the plaintiff does not require the house
bonafide for his personal use and occupation, particularly when the other house
is tenanted — Plaintiff is not entitled to lead evidence to prove that he
required the premises for building and re-building in the absence of any case
made out in the plaint for the bonafide requirement for the purpose of building
Chand Miah Sowdagar Vs. S.M.A. Rahman, 5 BLD (HCD) 337
56 C.W.N. 480; 27 DLR643 — Cited.
Section — 18
Waiver of default — Default in payment
of rent whether is waiver by subsequent acceptance of the rent for the period
of default at a time — Mere acceptance of rent is not sufficient to constitute
waiver — Whether there has been any waiver by the landlord must be gathered
from the facts of each case — Evidence must be given to establish plea of
waiver after raising the plea in the pleading — Once a default occurs
subsequent acceptance of the rent in lump by the landlord, does not in the
absence of any positive proof of his intention to waiver such default, amounts
to waiver so as to entitle him to the protection against the consequence of
default, that is, eviction.
Binning and Co. (Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Naziabad Properties Ltd; 6 BLD (AD)
31 DLR (AD) 183; 33DLR (AD) 55; (1904) 28 IL.R. Born 440; A.I.R. 1939 (PC) 159;
29DLR (SC) 13; 4BLD (AD) 298;— Cited.
Section — 18(c)
Bonafide requirement — Meaning of—
Plaintiff has a two storied residential building and a business office adjacent
to the suit premises — The plaintiff requires the suit premises for expanding
his office — Whether requirement is bonafide — Bonafide requirement means an
honest and genuine requirement and does not mean an absolute requirement — So
the plaintiffs requirements of the suit premises is bonafide.
Ayub Au Vs. Mst. Jahanara Shirin, 6BLD (HCD) 93
Section — 18(3)
Ejectment of a monthly tenant on the ground
of subletting – Whether a tenant becomes liable to be evicted from the
premises used by him for commercial or industrial purposes on the ground of
sub-letting without the consent of the landlord — In the instant case the
premises in question was mainly used for commercial purposes — The defendant
Nos. 3 and 4 were inducted in the premises for the purpose of the said business
— So there is no illegality in such subletting by the tenant defendant Nos. 1
and 2 — In the instant case consent of the landlord for subletting does not
arise but as the premises was used for commercial purpose on the subletting of
the premises with the transfer of the business therein the sub lessee is to be
treated as tenant on the determination of the tenancy — The agreement of
monthly tenancy being illegal and inadmissible in evidence the plaintiff cannot
take advantage of the agreement.
Ara Vs. Begum Motia Akter Khan, 6BLD (HCD) 317
.20DLR429;3 1 DLR(AD) 155 ;—Cited.
Sections — 18(5) and 19(1)
Depositing rents.—Lump deposit and
computation of the period of limitation — Provision of the Presidents Order No.
12 of 1972 that excludes certain period for instituting any legal proceeding on
grounds of atrocities by Pakistan occupation army has no manner of application
in a case where the tenants deposited arrear rents at a time in lump of several
months — President Order No. 12 of 1972, Article 4.
Osman Vs. Fatema Khatun, 10BLD (HCD) 192
8DLR 272 — Cited.
Proceedings before the Rent Controller
— Nature of — The deposit of rent in the office of the Controller is no institution
of a case as the Controller upon the deposit does not decide the disput between
the tenant and the landlord. He is merely a ‘conduit pipe’ — President’s Order
No. 12 of 1972; Articles — 2 and 4.
Osinan Vs.Fatema Khatun, IOBLD (HCD)192
8DLR 272 — Cited.
Section — 18(1)(e)
Onus probandi —When onus is arbitrarily
shifted and found not discharged — The plaintiff did not examine any
independent witness in support of its case that the food supplied by the
defendant’s canteen was not good — Trial Court arbitrarily shifted the
on the defendant for proving its defence plea — The plaintiff therefore failed
to bring its case home that he needed the tenanted premises for efficient
management of the canteen — Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), S. 102.
Channel Cinema Ltd. Vs. Chowdhury Golam Malek, 10BLD (AD) 82
Sections — 18 and 19
Remittance of rent—Remittance of rent
after becoming defaulter and deposit of rent beyond the prescribed period are
not in compliance of sections 18 and 19 and come within the rule of default.
Wahida Rashid and another Vz. Miron Mohammad Zahidul Huq, 11 BLD (HCD) 79: 43
DLR (HCD) 115
31 DLR (AD) 155 — Not applicable and 33 DLR(AD)55 — Relied.
Deposit of rent — Whether deposit aft
transfer by the landlord may continue by impleading the transferee landlord —
Such deposit cannot be taken as a ground to resin ejectment by the transferee
landlords — ho- pleading the transferee landlords in the Reni deposit case
filed against the previous landlord is a clear device to avoid payment of t to
the plaintiffs — They may not be entitled to rents prior to the transfer but
they are entitled to it since the transfer and this having n been paid’ the
tenants were defaulters.
Ahmed and another Vs. Dhirendra Mohan Das and another. 4BLD (AD) 180
Section — 19(2)
Payment of rent—Question of deposit in
case of doubt or dispute as to the person who is entitled to the rent—The
tenant went into possession under an agreement of tenancy and he is guided by
the Premises Rent Control Ordinance and if there is a bonafide doubt l is to
deposit the rent before the House Reni Controller.
Shafiuddin Vs. Mahboob Hasan, BLD (HCD)108
A.I.R. 1928 (Bombay) 265; A.I.R. 1956 (CaI)148; 33 DLR(AD)37; 24 DLR 202;
Bonafide requirement —- Owning of
houses more than one is no ground to hold that the premises of the suit is not
required for bonafide use by the landlord.
Osman Vs. Fatema Khatun and others, 10BLD (HCD) 192
Section — 19
only issue the House Rent Controller is required to see whether the petitioner
has deposited the rent in accordance with the provision of the House Rent
Control Ordinance— He is not required to decide anything with regard to default
in payment of rent — The question whether the petitioner is a defaulter or not
is to decided in the suit for ejectment and the finding of the House Rent
Controller on the point of default will have no binding effect on the S.C.C.
Judge while deciding the suit on merit — Petitioner is required to move first
the trial Court for stay of all further proceedings — Point of issue before the
House Rent Controller and the S.C.C Judge being distinct and different no
question of stay arises — prayer for stay rejected.
Mohd. Salimullah Vs. Shaftqul Alam, 10BLD(HCD)438
42DLR(HCD) 140; 4BLD(AD) 8; IBCR(HCD)450; 23DLR(HCD)l 13; Revision No. 1397 of
1978 (Unreported) — Cited.