the question as to the amount of rent payable on the construction of the lease
was raised and decided in the previous rent suit the decision cannot operate as
res-judicata in a subsequent rent suit.
-Vs-Purna Ch. Dey. (1954) 6 DLR 58.
and profits out of markets are benefits arising out of the land and, therefore,
come within the definitions of immovable property under section 2 clause 5 of
the General Clauses Act and can be treated separately from the land itself, and
can be a subject-matter of separate lease and mortgage independently of the
land on which it sits.
as an immovable property means the benefit that arises out of the land in the
shape of rents and profits derived from the market itself though the market
sits on the land.
rents and profits can be partitioned among the co-sharers of the land on which
the hat sits.
Sarkar -Vs- Kshemada Kinkar Roy (1952) 4 DLR 215.
record of rights show that rent payable is either a fixed quantity of paddy or
its value in a certain sum of money, the tenant has the option of paying either
of the two.
-Vs- Sharfuddin Ahmed Sikdar Chowdhury (1957) 9 DLR 81.
for payment of rent in kind or cash Construction depends on the actual words
regards the payment of rent the record-of- rights stated, ‘16 arise of paddy
including excess of Rs. 16/- of the price thereof’.
Held: The rent
payable was the fixed amount either in kind or cash.
-Vs- Puma Ch. Dey (1954) 6 DLR 58.
of—tenancy right: Mere non-payment of rent is not by itself sufficient to
extinguish the tenancy itself.
Das -Vs- Amarendra Datta & ors. (1957) 9 DLR 482.
of. Suit for
enhancement of rent of permanency of
tenancy and fixity of by the tenant—Burden of proof on the tenant.
K.B. Acharya Vs. Prov. Of E. Bengal (1954) 6 DLR
possession and fixity of rent and creation of superstructures within knowledge
of landlord will not by themselves prove permanency of tenancy aid permanent
fixity of rent—Landlord’s right to increment of rent exists unless shown
suit—tenant set-up another person as landlord. Tenant’s
contention that a third is the landlord—Question of title should not be in the
rent suit dragging in the 3rd party.
Ali Fakir -Vs- Lokman Hakim Fakir. (1956) 8 DLR 112.
Suspension of—Applicability of the principles of—The
doctrine of suspension of rent is not be applicable in this country in its
rigid form and shall be applied as a rule of justice, equity and good
Prodhan -Vs- Mainuddin Shaikh. (1950) 2 DLR 338.
between a case where a landlord initially fails to put a tenant in possession
of a portion of the demised land and a case of eviction.
is a distinction between a case where a landlord initially fails to put a
tenant in possession of a portion of the demised land, and a case of eviction
of the lessee by the lessor from a part of the land irrespective of the fact
whether the amount of rent reserved is a lump rental or not. Ibid.
Suit for enhancement of rent—Plea of permanency of tenancy and fixing of rent
by the tenant— Burden of proof on the tenants.
Kishore Acharya Chowdhury – Vs- Prov. of
East Bengal (1954) 6 DLR 1.