Transfer of Property Act [IV of 1882]

Section 106—

that the notice under I 06 of TP Act having not been served by PW I, the landlord, was bad in law, are beyond the pleading and amount to making out a new case for the defendant.

Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272.

Section 106—

A benamdar
is a trustee for the beneficial owner. A suit for eviction at the instance of the owner’s wife and son in whose name the Kabalas stand is maintainable.

Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272.

Section 106—

A benamdar
represents the real owner. A proceeding by or against the benamdar, although the beneficial owner is no party to it, is fully binding on the beneficial owner.

Kutubuddin Ahmed vs Hasna Banu and another 40 DLR (AD) 272.

Section 106—

There was no
oral or written contract whatsoever between the parties that the defendant is entitled to pay arrears rents in lump as and when its suits him. In the absence of such contract he has to pay rent for the previous month by the 15th of the following month. As the defendant has not done so he is a defaulter in the payment of rent on a number of occasions.

MM Zaman vs Mrs Sakina Ahmed 38 DLR 313.

Section 106—

When the
tenancy itself was terminated, a sub-lease created by the tenant cannot be said to have subsisted. It appears that the High Court Division omitted to consider that when defendant No. 1 was admittedly a tenant of the appellants predecessor Abdul Aziz Bepari who inducted defendant No. 2 into the suit premises without the consent and knowledge of the latter such transaction was of the nature of sub—lease, though not binding upon the landlord who was unaware of it. No question of giving consent to the sub—lease could, therefore, ever arise. Moreover, when the tenancy itself which was created in favour of defendant No. I by the appellants; predecessor was terminated, a sub­lease in favour of defendant No. 2 by the tenant cannot be said to have subsisted. A sub—lease can be said to be trespasser in the circumstances of the case. Technicalities of law may
sometimes prove to be of great value in winning even a bad case, but the defendant cannot hope to win on such technicalities alone.

Tajabunnessa vs Nazma Begum 40 DLR (AD)36.

Section 106—

Notice signed and issued by one of the landlords on behalf of himself and others terminating the lease is a valid notice in terms of section 106.

Dr. Sultan Ahmed vs AKM Fazlur Rahman 44 DLR 281.

Section 106—

A ‘liberal
consideration should be given to a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and minor inaccuracy or omission will not invalidate the service of such notice.

MG Jilani vs Md Waheduddin Sardar 44 DLR 348.

Section 106—

a point—When leave was granted with the tacit admission that the notice under section 106 of the TP Act was defective the Court cannot in fairness embark upon a fresh inquiry into the validity of such notice. The landlord-appellants having abandoned that point, they cannot be allowed to reagitate the same in the absence of the respondent.

Zahura Khatun vs Rokeya Khatun 43 DLR (AD) 98.

Section 106—

A sub-tenant
has no right to stay in the suit premises and no notice to quit is necessary.

(Rtd) AA Chowdhury  vs. AKM Imam Hossain and others 49 DLR 23 .

Section 106—

In the
absence of any agreement between the landlord and the tenant a 15 days’ notice determining the tenancy is required. But if the tenant denies title of the landlord in the suit premises, the necessity of serving any notice upon him is waived. Even if there is an agreement for 30 days’ notice for terminating tenancy and the notice served falls short of 30 days, but the suit for ejectment is filed after one month, the notice will be regarded as a valid one.

Solaiman (Md) vs. Sufia Akhtar Alam 49 DLR 288.

Section 106—

When a
tenant denies the title of the landlord in the demised premises without any valid reason it operates as a forfeiture of his tenancy right and in such a case a notice under section 106 of the TP Act may be dispensed with.

(Md) vs Sufia Akhtar Alam being dead, her heirs Narjesa Rahamatullah &others 50 DLR (AD) 90.

Section 106—

The tenancy
in question was according to Bengali Calendar month but the notice that has been given has no reference to the Bengali Calendar. The notice served upon the defendant cannot therefore be regarded as a notice for expiry of the tenancy
with the end of a month.

Kamruzzaman Khan vs Shahidul Alam Khan and others 51DLR393.

Section 106—

serving any notice under section 106 of the Act no tenant can be evicted.

Abdur Noor and others vs Mahmood Ali and others 54 DLR (.4D) 67.

Section 106—

more than one month’s notice to determine the tenancy has not contravened any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.

Santosh Kumar Das vs Hajee Badiur Rahman 54 DLR (AD) 93.

Section 106—

Since the
agreement in question is not a registered one it must be held to be a tenancy for month to month.

Loretto vs Nasreen Sobhan and another 55 DLR 581.

Sections 106 and 116—

over—­Whether the terms and conditions of the old agreement would continue to guide the relationship between the landlord and tenant.

Dr Suraiya
Hossain vs Taherunnesa 41 DLR 441.

Section 106—

contention that once the defendant was inducted in the disputed land with permission to raise construction, he is no more liable to be evicted therefrom, is totally an unacceptable proposition.

Azim vs Nairn Ara Begum 56 DLR 158;

Section 107—

lease deed of immovable property from year to year is inadmissible in evidence for lack of registration.

Bangladesh vs Md Aslam 44 DLR 69.

Section 109—

that mere deposit of rent in the name of plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest did not ipso facto prove attornment by the defendant could not be considered as it is found that the question of attornment was not raised in the pleading or inthe proceedings at any time.

Shambh Nath Saha vs Alfazuddin Ahmed 41 DLR (AD) 27.

Section 109—

as estoppel to prevent the tenant attorning, from denying the title of the one to whom he attorned. Law does not require the service of any written notice upon the tenant for effecting attornment. It may be sufficient if the tenant is informed of the change of ownership even verbally.

Solaiman (Md) vs. Sufia Akhtar Alam 49 DLR 288.

Section 111—

When there
is lease by registered instrument coupled with delivery of possession there cannot be any cancellation of lease by implication.

Sudangshu Jaladash and others vs Shahabuddin 52 DLR (AD) 119.

Section 111(f)—

surrender— Surrender of an under tenancy right need not be in writing. It may be inferred from act and conduct of parties as well.

Md Jashimuddin Kanchan vs Md Ali Ashraf 42 DLR (AD) 289.

Section 111(g)—

There is no
provision of law in determining a tenancy on the ground of a tenant becoming “an undesirable tenant” unless the tenant comes within the mischief of forfeiture under section 111 (g) of the TP Act.

Maria Keshi D’Rozario vs Hasan Moises Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Section 111(g)—

of lease on the plea of breach of condition—When the Government failed to deliver the full area of the land as described in the lease deed it cannot be said that the petitioner violated the term of the lease deed. Before cancellation of the registered lease deed it was required to the Government to send a show cause notice to the petitioner at his changed address.

Rahmania Agencies Ltd vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 363.

Section 111(g)—

In a case of
forfeiture of tenancy for denial of title, written notice of lessor’s intention to: determine the lease is not compulsory as the cause of action is the denial of the landlord’s title resulting in determination of the tenancy.

Ishaque (Md) vs Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others 54 DLR (AD) 26.

Section 111(g) & 114A—

lease invoking the aid of stipulation in the lease deed—­In the instant case the lease was determined on the breach of condition by the lessee as embodied in the lease deed and issuing notice on him invoking the aid of clause 5 of the
lease deed and section 11 l(g) of the TP Act. Therefore, the principle laid down in AIR 1970 (Cal) 452 is not applicable in the present case. The grounds for non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease deed which resulted in the forfeiture of the lease did not appear reasonable because of the long lapse of time.

Motiul Hoque vs DIT (RAJUK) 43 DLR 407.

Section 111(g)(2)—

The denial
of the title of the plaintiff-landlord in the written statement will not be available as a ground for determination of tenancy by forfeiture.

Sher Mohammad vs Saroda Bala Sen 45 DLR 527.

Section 111(g)(l)—

of tenancy—­When the defendant tried to make out a case of adverse possession denying the plaintiff’s title, the defendant forfeits his right of tenancy by renouncing his character as a tenant and by setting up title in a third person and thereafter claiming his own title.

Haragram Trust Board vs Dr Golam Mortuza Hossain 47 DLR 160.

Section 116—’Holding over’ and ‘continuing tenant as a statutory right’.

appellant is not ‘holding over’ within the meaning of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act nor is .he a tenant by sufferance. Appellant is a tenant under section 2(8) of the PRC Ordinance—Appellant entitled to benefit of section 18(5) of the PRC Ordinance, subject to the fixation of rent and other conditions for a fresh tenancy.

Maria Keshi D’Rozario vs Hosan Moises Ltd 41 DLR (AD) 135.

Section 116—

The renewal
of the lease in case of holding over, as under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not mean a continuation of the terms and conditions of the old lease but a new lease where there is no meeting of minds as to the term andcondition on which the lease is to be continued. It is a mere tolerance by the landlord as to the existence of a tenant in his house.

Dr Suraiya Hossain vs Taherun nessa 41 DLR 441.

Section 116—

con­tinuous possession with landlord’s assent creates an implied contract constituting a tenancy by holding—over. Such a tenancy cannot be created by tenant’s continuance of possession alone—there must also be the assent of the landlord, which may be expressed or implied. It may be evidenced by acceptance of rent or by other circumstances. Where the lessor dissents there cannot be any holding-over. Absence of dissent will not necessarily imply assent, but from the tenant’s continuous possession for a long period, without contrary indication from the landlord may constitute an implied assent. Implied assent
is a question of fact inferable from the length of possession and other circumstance excluding an inference of landlord’s dissent.

Siddik Alivs Nurun Nessa Khatun 43 DLR (AD) 3.

Section 116—

When there
has been no dissent either by the tenant or by the landlord on the expiry of the written agreement, the tenancy continued by holding over.

Mokbul Hossain Khondker vs Jaheda Khatoon 47 DLR 430.

Section 116—

The tenant
having continued in possession of the premises after expiry of lease agreement, he is bound to pay rent in terms thereof and not those under section 18(5) of the Ordinance.

Parimal Ranjan Das vs Nasima Khatun 49 DLR 286.

Section 118—

When the
vendors and transferees fail to prove execution and delivery of possession by any independent witness, the exchange must be held to be a hoax and not genuine transaction.

Kamaluddin and others vs Md Abdul Aziz and others 56 DLR 485.

Sections 118 & 119—

it is—An exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties, but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money. A party to the exchange when deprived of the thing received in exchange has his remedy under section 119. A third party too can raise the question of title of a party to the exchange.

Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others 44 DLR (AD) 86.

Sections 119 & 118—

it is—An exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties, but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money, a party to the exchange when deprived of the thing received in exchange has his remedy under section 119. A third party too can raise the question of title of a party to the exchange.

Sahera Khatun and another vs Anwara Khatun & others 44 DLR (AD) 86.

Section 122—

delivery of possession when not essential—Even if it is accepted that no express delivery of possession was taken by the donee, the delivery of possession if be taken by her constructively the requirement of law is substantially met—then, relationship of the donor and the donee beingthat of husband and wife the possession of husband may be the possession of the wife.

Abu Baker Sikder vs Mst. Monowara Begum 42 DLR 403.

Section 123—

In the
absence of a registered instrument a gift by a person belonging to Hindu community (governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law) is not valid under section 123 of the Act.

Kala Miah vsGopal Chandra Paul and others 51 DLR 77.

Sections 123 & 129—

Since it is
a gift under the Mohammedan Law it need not be registered in view of the exemption provided by section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act.

KZ Alam vs Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works 54 DLR 451.

Section 135A—

Though the
introduction of section 135A of the Act only has given right to the insurer after subrogation to sue on his own behalf but that has not taken away the right of the insured to file a suit for and on behalf of the insurer after getting compensation from the insurer.

Dula Meah Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd, and another vs MV Mehedinta and others 47 DLR 551.