(XX of 1963)


When a tenant remains in possession of the suit premises on termination of a tenancy, due to land lords non-action or negligence in not evicting him to enforce the land lord’s right to re-enter, such tenant, who therefore continues his possession by land lord’s negative permission is a “tenant by sufferance” who, is not a trespasser nor he could be treated as remaining upon the suit property by wrongful means.

Lutfur Rahman & Ors Vs. Khandaker Sirajuddin Ahmed & Ors 16 BLT (HCD) 179.

Section- 10 (1)

Section- 10 (a) (b) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance prohibits acceptance of any payment of any premium, salami, fine or any other like sum in addition to the rent exceeding one month’s rent of such premises as rent in advance. Admittedly
the landlord received Tk. 2.300/- from the tenant as advance security whereas he cannot take rent more than one month under the law and as such the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division correctly held that the agreement was void as it is hit by Section-10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.

Md. Abdus Salam & Ors. Vs. Md. Lal Miah 7BLT (AD)-323


In the present case, exhibits ‘Kha’ and ‘Gha’ are indicative of good relationship between the parties. Hence non-filing of the rent receipts by itself will not be so material as from the evidence on record admittedly the unadjusted amount remains in the hands of the plaintiffs—the defendant having actually proved the payment of rent by oral and documentary evidences the trial court including the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division wrongly held the defendant to be a defaulter.

Monaranjan Barua Vs. Mirza Masud Hossain & Ors. 4BLT (AD)-192

Section- 13

On a perusal of section 13 of the Premises Rent Control Act, I am of the view that as soon as the relationship of landlord the tenants is established, the onus is on the tenant to prove payment of monthly rents and such proof must be established on the basis of rent receipts or by any paper showing payment of rent in writing, signed by the landlord and no oral evidence is permissible or admissible to prove payment of monthly rents

Ratan Bikash Mahajan & Ors Vs. Kanchan Dos & Ors 16BLT (HCD) 217

Section – 18

The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent on the allegation that the appellant has been carrying a business in suit premises under the plaintiff at a rental of Tk. 300/- per month. He is a defaulter in the payment of monthly rent from November, 1981 —The appellant admitted the tenancy at a rental of Tk. 300/- per month. He is not a defaulter and he has been paying rent regularly in House Rent Case—High Court Division found that the appellant having deposited 3 months rent (November, 1981 to January 1982) at a time was defaulter in the payment of rents when he filed the said House Rent Case and as such he is not entitled to get the benefit, of Section 18 of the Premises Control Ordinance.

Held :
The suit premises was admittedly declared as an abandoned property and the appellant paid rents to the Abandoned Property Cell from time to time in lump which was the practice —There is absolutely no evidence that plaintiff-respondent ever informed the appellant that the suit the building has been released in his favour from 26.11.81 requiring the appellant to make payment of rent not to the Abandoned Property Cell but to the plaintiff. There is also no evidence on record that before 17.2.82 any official communication was addressed to the appellant informing him of the release of the suit building in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. The appellant had sent 3 months’ rent by postal money order to the plaintiff. On coming to know that the
suit building has been released in his favour. On the plaintiffs refusal to accept the money order the appellant deposited 4 month’s rent upto February to the Authority. There was neither any mala fide nor any intentional desire to deprive the plaintiff from his claim of rent—the High Court Division did not consider these facts and it apparently made a mistake of fact in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was a defaulter.

Monzurul Morshed Vs Humayun Majid 3BLT (AD)-165

Section- 18(5)

From the materials on record it appears that the tenancy of the respondent Md. Lal Miah with the father of the petitioner terminated with his father’s death. Both the plaint case and the notice under Section- 106 of the Transfer of Property Act show that there was a fresh tenancy created with the respondent for a rental of Tk. 90/- in place of Tk. 60/- which was the rental for previous tenancy. It was only in the previous tenancy agreement (Ext. 1) that there was a stipulation of payment of rent within 7 days of the following month. It does not appear from the claim of the petitioner that there was any such term in the agreement with the respondent. Therefore the rent was payable within 15 days from the following month in accordance with Section- 18(5) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.

Md. Abdus Salam & Ors. Vs. Md. Lal Miah 7BLT (AD)-323

Section —18(5) read with 19(1)(2)

To get the protection of law the tenant is to pay or deposit the rent in accordance with law till the disposal of the eviction suit either to the landlord or to the House Rent Controller within the stipulated period of time in the contract or in the absence of contract within fortnight of the next following month, as contemplated in section 18(5) and 19(1) and (2) of the Ordinance failing which the tenant cannot avoid his liability of being a defaulter and as such liable to be evicted. Thus in the present case the tenant having failed to deposit the rent with the House Rent Controller for the month as mentioned above within fortnight of the following month, he is a defaulter in the eye of law and once a defaulter is always a defaulter.

Lutfur Rahman & Ors Vs. Khandaker Sirajuddin Ahmed & Ors 16 BLT (HCD)179

Section-18 Read with Section-2(8) and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section-106

Whether the lessor’s case maintainable without a notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act and when the lessor’s case was not one of default nor one of bonafide requirement and the tenant was holding over as a statutory tenant, paying regular rent before the
rent controller—No.

(a) Lease of immovable property is created under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such statutory notice must be given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for termination of tenance. The provisions of the Rent Control Ordinance are in addition to this section of notice u/s 106 by the T.P. Act. There is nothing in the Ordinance which also absolves the landlord to serve notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act. Unless the tenancy is determined by giving a notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act no suit for ejectment of a monthly ten ant can be filed.

Abdul Aziz Vs Md. Abdul Majid 2BLT (AD)-151

(b) Per Mostafa Kamal, J. (agreeing): The tenant cannot be evicted solely and only on the ground of expiry of the period of lease, even if a notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act is validly served before filing of the suit. A notice will only be an idle formality in that case, leading to no remedy.

Abdul Aziz Vs Md. Abdul Majid 2BLT (AD)-151

Section-18(B) read with Transfer of property Act, Section- 106

In the instant case admittedly the defendant did not take prior consent of the plaintiff respondent for sub-letting a portion of the suit premises. Since the courts below had concurrently found that notice under section 106 had been correctly served and that a portion of the premises was sub-let without consent of the plaintiff the tenant was liable to be ejected.

Nur Nahar Begum & Ors Kabir Ahmed Chowdhury & Ors 12 BLT (AD) 108

Section —19(1)

Since the tenant paid rent lastly in 1987 and in the background of the tenant’s case that she offered rent in 1396 B.S. i.e. in 1989. the tenant was a defaulter while filed Miscellaneous cases. It may be mentioned Miscellaneous cases under section 19(1) of the Ordinance was filed in 1991 for depositing the rent of 1989. The learned Counsel could not place any material before us that after 1987 the tenant paid or offered rent of the years i.e. for 1988-1990. In that state of the matter the trial Court held that the tenant was a defaulter in the payment of rent but the appellate Court while setting aside the order of the trial Court did not reverse that material finding that the tenant i.e. the present petitioner is a defaulter. The High Court Division has rightly held
that the Miscellaneous cases were not maintainable since tenant was defaulter prior to the filing of the cases under section 19(1) of the Ordinance.

Mst. Hosne Ara Begum Vs. Md. Mozaffar Ahmed Meah 16 BLT (AD) 169.