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(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
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
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.