Decided on May 31,2009

Bashudev Ghosh Appellant
Iswar Sree Sree Bashudev Shalgram Shola Jew Bigrah Respondents


SHAH ABU NAYEEM MOMINUR RAHMAN,J. - (1.) These two leave petitions filed under article 103 of the Constitution are for granting leave to appeals. The leave petition No.878 of 2008 arises out of Civil Revision No.1310 of 1996 arising out of the judgment and order dated30.09.1995 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 82 of 1995 by the Additional District Judge, 4th court, Dhaka, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 29.03.1995 passed in House Rent Case No. 34 of 1982 by the Assistant Judge (House Rent Controller), Dhaka, and the leave Petition No. 879 of 2008 arises out of Civil Revision No.201 of 1995 arising out of the judgment and order dated 24.09.1984 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.195 of 1984. Both the cases are between the same parties and arises out of the common fact and same property and the High Court Division disposed of both the Rules issued in the Civil Revision Case No.1310 of 1996 and 201 of 1995 by a single judgment an order.
(2.) The petitioners of both the leave petitions are same-tenants and the respondent No.1 is the landlord.
(3.) The relevant facts are that the father of the petitioners was a tenant under the landlord-Bigrah and that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the tenant for vacating the suit premises, wherein the father of the leave petitioners, was a monthly ejectable tenant, and that the leave petitioners got themselves substituted in the cases before the High Court Division. Earlier their attempts for substitution failed before the courts below. The House Rent Case was filed by the tenant for deposit of rents stating that the father of the petitioners was a monthly tenant and paid rent upto Agrahayan 1388 B. S. and that after his death the petitioner became the tenants by way of inheritance and that the rent offered for the month of Poush 1388 B. S. was refused and accordingly the rent was sent though postal money order, which returned unpaid with endorsement that the addressee found absent. The landlord entered appearance and filed written objection denying the claim of the tenants and alleging that they have been sued for eviction and that the tenants did not pay any rent since Shrabon 1386 B. S. The Rent Controller dismissed the case holding that the tenants did not pay rents for the 29 months prior to sending of the money order for the month of Poush 1388 B. S. and thereby they are defaulters and hence under Section 18 (5) of the House Rent controller ordinance they are not entitle to deposit rent under Section 19(1) of the House Rent Control ordinance.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.