SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1887

Question of bonafide requirement – element of ‘must’

The plaintiff has shown that she has no other  premises either in Chittagong or in Dhaka except the premises in suit and that she needs the same for her own use and occupation upon constructing a residential house. In that state of the matter genuinely element of ‘must’ is present relating to bonafide requirement of the premises by the plaintiff.

Mst. Bulbul Begum Vs. M. Sanwar Belal & Anr. 14 BLT (AD)83

Question of defaulter

The law requires the tenant to pay the rent of the month became due either by the date as per terms of contract or by the 15th of the next month and default thereof visits him with the consequence as provides in law.

Mst. Bulbul Begum Vs. M. Sanwar Belal & Anr. 14BLT(AD)83

Section-15 (1)

Suit for eviction— Held: We have gone through the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court Division. The High Court Division has rightly taken the view that the title of the plaintiff to the suit property is itself clouded and the registered lease deed Ext. 1 was not acted upon in as much as admittedly there was no payment of rent in terms as the said lease deed. The suit therefore involved a serious question of title and in the absence of a proper suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession a simple S. C. C. suit under the circumstances does not lie.

Bablu Mia Vs. Mrs Nurjahan Begum & Ors. 4BLT (AD)-223

Section- 15(1) Read with Article-(4) of the Second Schedule

In a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent it has to be alleged specifically since when the default has been made—In the present case, the plaintiff by a conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as unauthorized occupant liable to be evicted without any notice.
Such a suit was not maintainable in the court of Small Causes in view of section 15(1) read with Article (4) of the second schedule of The Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

Md. Faziur Rahman Shah Vs. Md. Arifur Rahman 4BLT (AD)-236

Section – 17(1)

The applicant for the maintainability of the petition filed seeking setting aside of the exparte decree passed in a SCC suit is to comply with the provision of the proviso to section 17(1) of the Act in totally i.e. he is to deposit the decreetal amount or furnish security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment. There is no other alternative of the aforesaid
provisions for maintaining an application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree of the courts of Small Cause.

Md. Abdur Rahman Faroque Vs. Md. Shamsul Hoque & Anr 15 BLT (AD)135

Section —17(1)

During Pendency of the case the Security bond was submitted —Court’s Power.

In the instant case although the Petitioner failed to put in the requisite security bond along with the application made under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 17(1) of the SCC Act but he submitted the security
bond during pendency of the Miscellaneous Case. I hold that the security bond having furnished during pendency of the Miscellaneous Case shall be deemed to have been proper compliance of section 17(1) of the SCC Act.

Mohammad Salah Uddin Vs. Mohammad Idris Miah 15BLT(HCD)338

Section-23

In the instant case the suit is in essence and substantially a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. In such a case the question of title to the disputed premises is not relevant at all once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the plaintiff—the landlord cannot be thrown out of the Court of Small Causes on the plea of tenant’s title on which the landlord’s
claim does not depend.

Afroza Bewa & Ors. Vs. Md. Jalaluddin. Pramanik 4BLT (AD)-278

Section-25

The notice of attainment dated 20-10-91 was in the nature of an intimation to the petitioner that after Aftabuddin’s death his heirs have sold the demised premises to the plaintiffs. The statement that the relationship between landlord and tenant stood severed after the death of Aftabuddin was made in view of the prevailing law that a monthly tenancy ceases with the death of
either the landlord or the tenant.

A. M. M. Azizul Ban Vs. Hazi Md. Amanullah & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-133

Small Cause Courts Act

Suit by landlord for eviction — ground of bonafide requirement. The ground floor of the premises in question contains a number of shops and the suit for evictions was filed to evict the tenant-defendant from one of the ground floor shops on the
ground of bonafide requirement of the second son of the landlady to open up a business of his own. The trial court, as also the High Court Division, found that two other shops in the ground floor fell vacant during the pendency of the suit and new tenants have been inducted to carry on business therein — The court can always take notice of events subsequent to the suit — the second son of the landlady in his deposition has stated something which has not therein in the plaint — the plaintiff failed to prove her bonafide requirement of the shop premises.

Musammat Salma Vs. Md. Serajul Islam 2BLT (AD)-92

Specific Performance of Contract

In a suit for specific performance of contract, a decree cannot be passed to oust the persons from their homestead if there is possibility that they shall have to go to the Street leaving their paternal property.

Biplob Chandra Das & Anr. Vs. Biren Chandra das & Ors. 8BLT (HCD)-370

Specific Performance of Contract Maturity

If a proceeding is though premature on the date of filing but with the continuance of the proceeding becomes matured, such question of immaturity loses all defects and becomes cured;

Sardar Jan Mohammad & Anr. Vs. Lutfannessa & Ors 13 BLT (HCD)173. 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.