Premises Rent Control Ordinance


Rent Control Ordinance, 1986


and 19


amount is paid by the tenant to his landlord in terms of the contract as a
consideration for the amenities, benefits and services to be provided by and at
the cost of the landlord in connection with the use and occupation of the
demised premises will form part of the ‘rent’ within the meaning of subsection
(6) of Section 18 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.

the present case, monthly rent was fixed at Taka 1,098/- only for the demised
premises. By a separate clause it was provided that WASA charge will be paid at
the rate of Taka 60/- only per month along with the rent. Stipulation was that
the tenant would pay the water bills but for the convenience of the tenant
would pay a lump sum of Taka 60/- only per month to the landlord along with the
rent. This amount which is not due to the landlord on account of any amenity,
benefit or service rendered by him cannot be included in term ‘rent’.
Therefore, non-payment or non-deposit of the WASA charge along with the rent
cannot make the tenant a defaulter for nonpayment for rent or for not making a
valid deposit.

Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Al-Haj Md. Ismail 16 BLD (AD) 285.

Residence Limited Vs. Surendra Mohan Banerjee, 195 1CLJ (Vol. 87) 322; Sk. Chaterjee
Vs. Residence Limited, 58 C.W.N. 607; Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Miss Augustine,
A.I.R. 1957(SC) 309—Cited.



19(2) of the Ordinance permits the tenant to deposit the rent in case of any
bonafide doubt or dispute as to the person entitled to receive the rent. There
is no wrong in an order of the High Court Division allowing the tenant’s
application for making deposit of rent.

Mirjahan Vs. M/S. Golden Biscuit Co., 13 BLD (AD) 166.


(1) and (3)

No application under section 21(1) and 2 1(3)
of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance is maintainable when the tenant seeking
permission is out of possession of the disputed premises at the time of making
the application and when the question of reconstruction is involved.

Abdul Kader
Khan v. Rajshahi Cooperative Town Society Ltd., 22 BLD (HCD) 456.


Premises Rent
Control Ordinance, 1991


and 19

Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882)


being found to be a defaulter and as such he is not entitled to any protection
of ejectment according to provision of Premises Rent Control Ordinance or
Transfer of Property Act.

Bashir Ahmed
and ors Vs Ayub Ali Mollah, 19 BLD (HCD) 537.


14 and 23

practice of receipt of salami on condition of making the monthly tenancy
transferable and non-ejectable is an illegal practice prohibited under the
provision of Section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Act, 1991,. Under Section
14 of the said Act the tenant is entitled to pray for refund of the salami paid
to the landlord within 6 months of such payment and the landlord is liable to
pay fine under Section 23 of the said Act.

to the wide-spread prevalence of voluntary payment of salami in the urban areas
on condition of making the monthly tenancy transferable and non- ejectable a
tenant hardly goes to the House Rent Controller for refund of salami and for
punishing the landlord. It is because of this fact that an interest is created
in favour of the tenant in the tenanted premises by way of allowing him to
transfer his possession to a third party and or to sub-let whole or part of the
premises and also of his non- ejectability from the premises.

Amiruddin Ahmed Vs. Begum Shamsun Nahar, 15 BLD (HCD) 119.