Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

 

 

Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

 

Section-18 Read with Section-2(8) and

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 06

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 arid 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 of the T.P. Act. There is nothing in the Ordinance which also absolves the landlord to serve notice u/s 106 oftheT.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 tenant can be filed. IPara-131

(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. [Para-22]

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

 

Section-10

Section- 10(1 )(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-lO of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. [Para-7]

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

Section- 13

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. I Para-16]

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

Section – 18

The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent on the allegation that the appellant has been cariying 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 haiing 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. [Paras-2, 5 & 8]

Monzurul Morshed Vs Humayun Majid 3 BLT(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. [Para-6]

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

Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

 

Premises
Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

 

Sections—18
and 19

Regular
payment of rent and claim of adjustment against advance

A
tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent regularly to the landlord, which
alone saves him from the menace of ejectment. A tenant has no right to claim
adjustment of any advance against monthly rent. Advance rent or any premium in
any form being strictly prohibited by law, any agreement for advance or premium
is evidently void and not enforceable. The remedy for the tenant in case of
advance is to move the Rent Controller within six months of creation of the
tenancy for getting an order of refund.

Mymensingh
Arya Dharma Gnan Prodaini Sava v. Sree Rabindra Narayan Paul, 22 BLD (HCD) 591.

Ref:
Shamsuddin Ahmed v. Moh. Hossain, 31 DLR(AD)155—relied.



 

Sections—18(5)
and 19(1)

Under
Sub-section (1) of Section 19, a tenant is entitled to deposit his rent with
the Rent Controller when the landlord has refused to accept the same after it
was remitted to him within the specified period by postal money order in terms
of Section 18 of the Ordinance. There is nothing in the ‘explanation’ to
justify the view that there should be a prior personal tender of the rent to
the landlord before remitting it by postal money order.

If
Section 19(1) be read along with Section 18(5) of the Ordinance, it will be
evident that in order to make a deposit under Subsection (1) of Section 19, the
tenant is only to show that he remitted the Rent by Postal Money Order within
the specified time and the landlord refused to accept it and the tenant’s
prayer for deposit with the Rent Controller was made within a fortnight of the
receipt of the undelivered rent sent through the postal authorities the
landlord has refused to accept the within the specified period by postal of the
Ordinance. There is nothing in that there should be a prior personal before
remitting it by postal money.

The
underlying object of this provision is to enable the tenants to fall back on
the evidence of tender as preserved by the Rent Controller’s office for the
purpose of subsequent determination of the question as to whether a tenant is a
defaulter or not, should the landlord subsequently sue him for ejectment on the
ground of default. This is for the protection of tenants and as such any
‘doubt’ regarding the meaning of the aforesaid provisions should be resolved in
favour of the tenants for whose benefit it is intended.

M/S. Golden
Biscuit Co.Vs. Al-Haj Rafique Mia and another, 14 BLD (HCD) 294

Ref:
Maria Keshi D’ Rozario Vs. Hassan Movies Ltd., 41 DLR(AD) 135- Cited.

 

Sections—18(5)
and 19(1)

If Section 19(1) be read along with Section
18(5) it becomes evident that a tenant is – ordinarily to pay rent within the
time stipulated in the contract and in its absence by 15th day of the month
next following for which rent becomes due. If the landlord refuses to accept
rent sent through money order within the aforesaid period, the tenant becomes
entitled under Section 19(1) (a) to deposit rent with the Rent Controller
within a fortnight of the receipt of the undelivered rent. If the landlord
fails to notify in writing his willingness to accept rent from the tenant,
Clause (b) of Section 19(1) enables the tenant to deposit rent with the Rent
Controller within 15 days from the stipulated date and in the absence of only
such stipulation within 15 days from the 15th day of the month next following
for which rent becomes payable.

Atiqullah
Vs. Mosammat Rahela Bib I4BLD(HCD)360

 

Sections—18(S)
and 19 (2)

When
a bonafide doubt or dispute arises as to who is entitled to receive the rent as
per section 18 of the Ordinance, the rent may be deposited by the tenant within
a fortnight of the date on which the rent becomes due or from the expiry of the
time within which such rent is required to be paid under sub-section (5) of
Section 18. The question of bonafide doubt or dispute as to who is entitled to
receive rent pre-supposes a dispute as to the ownership of the premises.
Unfounded plea of bonafide dispute will not entitle the tenant to invoke the
provision of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Ordinance.

If
after receipt of the notice of attornment from the plaintiff the defendant does
not offer rent to the plaintiff and the latter does not refuse it, the deposit
of rent in the House Rent Controller Case by impleading the transferee landlord
will not save the tenant from default and ejectment.

Abul Hossain
Vs. Md. Islam, 15 BLD (AD)9.

Ref:
4 BLD(AD) 280—Cited.

 

Sections—10(b)
and 18(5)

Contract
Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), Section—23

Section
10(b) of the Ordinance prohibits the acceptance of money by way of advance rent
by the land lord. This contravenes the positive statutory mandate as provided
in section 10(b) of the Ordinance and renders the agreement for lease void
under section 23 of the Contract Act. In view of the unenforceability of such
an agreement the position is that the appellants are monthly tenants who are
liable to ejectment if they make default in payment of rent. Even if the
tenants become defaulters during the continuance of the suit, then they should
be treated as a defaulters and they will not entitled to the benefit under
section 18 (5) of the Ordinance.

Md.
Jashimuddin and another Vs. Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, 14 BLD (HCD) 528.

Ref:
Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. Mohammad Hossain, 31 DLR (AD) 155; Ramjan Ali Mistry Vs.
Md. Heday4Stullah; 31 DLR (AD) 183; Nowab Meah Vs. Nur Nahar Begum, B.S. CR
(1983) 238- Cited.

 

Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 (XX of 1963)

Section-2(8)

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

Section-13

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.