BANGLADESH Vs. MD. IBRAHIM BEPARI
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Md. Ibrahim Bepari
Click here to view full judgement.
SHAHABUDDIN AHMED,J. -
(1.) This is an appeal by special leave granted to the appellants, Bangladesh and another, to examine the legality and propriety of a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of a residential flat in Chandpur Government Housing Estate. The decree was passed by the Munsif, Chandpur, is T.S. No. 74 of 1975; it was affirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge; the High Court Division did not interfere with it in revision.
(2.) In the judgment of the courts below the suit property has been referred to, as residential "quarters". It is one of the flats of a building which was constructed by the Government of the then East Pakistan for providing residential accommodation to the displaced persons who had migrated from India, generally known as "Behari Refugees" The quarter was allotted under a Lease Agreement to respondent No. 2, Shamsuddin, in 1965 for his residence, but he immediately after taking possession entered into an Agreement with respondent No. 1, Ibrahim, to sell it on a consideration of Tk. 4000/- out of which he received Tk. 2000/- promising to execute the necessary sale-deed on receiving the balance; but he did not perform his part of the contract whereupon respondent No. 1 filed the; suit seeking specific performance of the contract. The Government alone contested The suit taking the ground that under the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement the allottee, respondent No. 2, did not acquire any right to transfer the quarter, that he left the quarter since 16 December 1971, as a result of which it fell vacant and was occupied by unauthorised persons, who were evicted and it was then allotted to the widow of a freedom-fighter in March 1973 since when she has been in possession of it. The Agreement between the allottee, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1, it was contended, was void and inoperative and as such there was no question of its specific performance.
(3.) Both the trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently found that the Agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was genuine, that respondent No. 2, the lessee, was in exclusive possession of the quarter and had a right to transfer it. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court Division in revision upheld the decree observing that respondent No. 2 had "transferable right" in the properly in spite of his Lease-Deed with the Government which showed his position as that of a mere "Licensee".;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.