Small Causes Courts Act, 1887

 

Small Causes
Courts Act, 1887

 

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. [Para-7]

Bablu Mia
Vs. Mrs Nurjahan Begum & Ors. 4 BLT (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. [Paras-10 & 13]

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

 

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. [Para – 13]

Afroza Bewa & Ors. Vs. Md. Jalaluddin Pramanik 4 BLT (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. [Para-7]

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

 

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. [Paras-2, 3 & 5]

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

SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1887

 

SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1887

(IX OF 1887)

 

Section — 15

S.C.C.Suit — Court has no jurisdiction
to go into the question of title except incidentally or to set aside the decree
of a civil Court

Respondent
filed S.C.C. suit ft)r eviction of the appellants from the suit premises
claiming title to the premises on the basis of a decree for specific
performance passed against the landlords of the appellants. Appellants
challenged the title of the respondents contending that the decree was
fraudulently obtained. The finding of the S.C. Court in substance has
established that respondents succeeded in proving the relationship of landlord
and tenant. But the S.C. Court proceeded to examine the paramount title of the
respondents and held that the decree for specific performance was fraudulently
obtainedand therefore the respondents did not acquire title to the suit
premises and dismissed the suit.

The
S.C.C. Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question of paramount title and
in doing so to set aside the decree of a Civil Court obtained by the predecessor
of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract. The Small
Causes Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title, except
incidentally.

Sudhangshu
Kuinar Chowdhury and another Vs. Md. Au Hossain and others, I BLD(AD)128

Ref:
11 DLR 427 — Cited.

 

Sections — 15. 16 and 23

S.C.C. suit—The suit falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Judge but erroneously tried by
a Court other than the SCC Judge suffers from no legal infirmity and the trial
cannot be vitiated. Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act negatives the
proposition that section 16 of the Act altogether deprives the civil Court of
the jurisdiction conferred by section 9 of the Code in respect of the Small
Causes Suit.

Mst.
Wahida Rashid and another Vs. Miron Mohammad Zahidul Huq, 11BLD (HCD) 79:
43DLR115.

Ref:
A.1.R.l956 (Mad) 610; 9 DLR (PC) o86; A.I.R.1956 (Mad) 611: 6DLR 588; 25 DLR
142: A,I.R.1938 (Rangoon) 35; 22 DLR 444— Cited.

 

Section — 17(1) Proviso

S.C.C decree passed exparte — Application
to set aside the decree — Deposit of decretal amount or furnishing of security
with the application, not mandatory — Application to set aside the decree along
with another application seeking Courts direction may be filed within the
period of limitation—Court may pass order beyond the period of limitation
giving direction — Compliance with the Courts direction within the time fixed
by the

Court
— Application to set aside the decree is maintainable.

Benode
Behari Saha Vs.Nitya Gopal Saha, 1BLD (AD)95

Ref:
AIR. 1931 (Lah) 332; l.L.R. 43 (Mad) 597; (1894)108 P.R. 1894: (1910)54 P.R.
1910: 6 IC. 945; (1919) 50 IC. 917;

(189l)j8
Cal. 83; (1907) 9 Born. L.R. 883; (1905) 32 Cal. 339: 1 C.L.J.l43: I.L.R.43
(Mad)579: 55 IC. 977 (F.B); AIR. 1928 (All) 111: 53 All. 254: A.I.R.
l93l(Lah)332; 54 C.W.N.(2DR)67; 24C.W.N. 380— Cited.

 

Section — 17(1)

Application for setting aside an exparte
deeree passed in a S.C.C. Suit
— Conditions laid down in the proviso of
section 17(1) of S.C.C. Act must be fulfilled normally —. But non-compliance
with such conditions will not affect the order setting aside the exparte decree
restoring the S.C.C. suit when it escaped notice of either of the Court or of
the plaintiff- respondent leading to granting relief to the defendant — appellant
— Plaintiff-respondent cannot be said to be prejudicially affected if the case
is determined on merits in the presence of both parties — One cannot take
advantage of his own wrong when, as in the pie- sent case, by taking no
objection at the right moment before the right Court, one allows its machinery
to function and takes objection at the conclusion of the case when it goes
against him and this also not by an appropriate proceeding.

A.K.
Marshed Ahmed Vs. Md. Meher Ali and others, 3 BLD(AD) 107

Ref:
33 DLR (AD)130—Cited.

 

Section — 23

S.C.C. SuitWhether question of title can be decided in such a suit — S.C.C.
Act gives discretion to the Court to return a plaint involving question of
title — This power is discretionary and it is indicated that a Court of Small
Cause has the power to decide incidentally question of title in a suit which is
essentially a S.C.C. matter — In the instant case for eviction of a tenant the
plaintiff wasnot required to prove his title to the suit premises — If he could
prove that he had inducted the deceased defendant, any other person in his
place would be estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff — Evidence Act.
1872(1 of 1872). S. 116.

Banu
Gopal Lala Vs. Hajee Abdul Hainid Khan and others, 3BLD(HCD)274

 

 

 

Sections —25 and 28A

 

Revision—Whether revision lies against
an order of transfer of a S.C.C. suit by the District Judge — Reivisional
jurisdiction when attracted — It is attracted only in a case decided by a Small
Causes Court to satisfy whether the decree or order made by such Court was
according to law — Revisional jurisdiction under section 25 S.C.C. Act does not
confer power of revision of an order of transfer of a S.C.C. suit under section
28A.

Abdul
Khalek Mia Vs. Maya Debi and others, 4 BLD(AD)3

Ref.
AiR. 1938 Lahore 95; (1887)18 Q.B.D.704 — Cited.

 

Section — 25

Revision—Whether appeal or revision
lies against a decision in a suit of the nature of small causes — No appeal
lies against a decision in a suit of the nature of small causes if the Court
trying had S.C.C. jurisdiction but a revision will lie before the High Court.

Mosammat
Khorshed Akhtar Khanam Vs. Haji Mohammad Ayub Hossain, 4BLD (HCD) 62

Ref:
25DLR 142: 1 2DLR380; 29DLR3 14; 29DLR380 — Cited.

 

Section — 25

Attornment — Tenant’s plea against attornment
when cannot be considered
— Defendant contends hat mere deposit of rent did
not ipso facto prove attornrnent by him to the palintilis predecessor — The
contention cannot be considered because it is found that the question of
attornment was not raised either in the pleading or in the proceeding at any
time — There is no substance in the question raised that there existed no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Shambhu
Nath Saha Vs. Alfazuddin Ahniçd and others, 8 BLD (AD) 210

Ref:
33DLR(AD)37 — Cited

 

Section — 25

Revision—Scope, reversal of finding of
S,C.C. Court by the High Court Division. whether justified — Trial Courts
finding based on elaborate and detailed consideration of both the documentary
evidence (Ext.A) and the attendant circumstances, the High Court Division
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under se n 25 of the Small Cause Courts
Act in reversing the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court which
decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant. The reversal of the finding of
fact on the grounds stated by the High Court Division is totally unwarranted.
The High Court Division itself has failed to read the judgment of the learned
S.C.C. Judge properly.

Md.
Abdur Razzaq alias Md. Raja Miah Vs. Md. Ansar Au and another, 12 BLD (AD) 133

Ref:
32 DLR (AD) 170—Cited.

 

Small Causes Courts Act, 1887

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.