The Non Agricultural Tenancy Act (XXIII of 1949)
Section 7(2)
In respect of non agricultural tenancy holding created before the Transfer of Property Act the existence of the following elements are necessary in order to make out the presumption of permanency of tenancy:
(1) The origin of a tenancy for residential purpose must be unknown and the principle of a lost grant is invoked by tenant.
(2) Existence of a permanent pucca buildings on the lands built long before the arising of any controversy and that to the knowledge of the landlord.
(3) Reorganization of succession and transfer by the landlord. Mati Gouri Das vs A.B. M. Hasan kabir & Ava Rani Aich. (K. M. Hasan J(Civil) 2ADC 635
Section 9
The ejectment suit against a monthly non-agricultural tenant holding land for more than one year but less then 12 years the tenant is entitled to 6 months notice and that section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must be read as being subject to section 9 of the Non- Agricultural Tenancy Act which gives the same right to a monthly tenant as to other tenants we hold that the High Court Division has not committed any wrong and illegality in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. M/s. Shahjhan Enterprise Ltd. Vs Meghna Petroleum Ltd. (Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury C J) (Civil) 2ADC 455
Section 23, 2(4)
Plaintiff got the settlement as far back as on 15 Chaitra 1355 B.S which corre- sponded to March, 1948 but the Non- agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 came into force on 20th October, 1949. As such its application in respect of the suit property does not arise at all. Mrs. Nirmala Bala Das vs Ganesh Chandra Dhupia (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J) (Civil) 2ADC 274
Section 24
The section is very clear that only a co- sharer tenant and none else can pre- empt. But in this particular case the pre- emptor respondents are not co-sharer tenants because of the decree in the suit for specific performance of contract in which they were parties by way of substitution. As a result they have them- selves become the vendors of the disput- ed land and no longer remained co-shar- er tenants of the disputed land. Mossammat Khursheda Jahan alias Mst. Monju Khorsheda vs Syada Shafinaz Jahan (K.M. Hasan J) (Civil) 2ADC 365
Section 24
The pre-emptee is a co-sharer in the holding otherwise than by purchase: Heba though is a transfer but not a trans- fer by purchase and transfer of a portion. of the holding in such manner is protect- ed and pre-emption for such transfer. does not lie against such transferee. Pre- emption in case of such transfer by Heba is barred under section 24(II) (a) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. Monzur Rahman Khan vs Mst. Tahera Parvin (Md. Fazlul Haque J(Civil) 2ADC 367
Section 24
In the instant case nothing has been. brought on record that the tenancy was created for non-agricultural purpose. The character of the land is always. referable to the purpose for which settlement was made. If the settlement was made for a purpose unconnected with the agriculture in that case the land even if used for the purpose connected with the agriculture would remain as non- agricultural land. It may also be men- tioned that the purpose of the land may also be referable to its location or situa- tion i.e. if it is within the urban area or in other words within the Municipal area in that case the land would assume the character of non-agricultural land even if the said land was for the purpose connected with agriculture. Abdul Khaleque vs Abdul Noor (Md. Ruhul Amin JCivil) 3ADC 97
Section 24
Application seeking pre-emption of the land transferred by one of the sons of Rajjab Ali Khan claiming to be co-sharer by inheritance. Once the properties among co-sharers are partitioned by a registered partition deed showing pos- session in specific share, co-sharership under Section 24 of the Non- Agricultural Tenancy Act ceases and separation of tenancy is not necessary, Aktaruzzaman alias Sahin vs. Abdur Rashid Khan and others(Md. Ruhul Amin JCivil) 3ADC 943
Section 24
The transaction sought to be pre-empted was not an exchange but a sale but the High Court Division on consideration of the evidence of P.W.I and the Ext.4 held that pre-emptor on the death of his father inherited 6 decimals of land and he having had gifted the same during the proceeding to his wife ceased to be the co-sharer of the holding and thereupon made the Rule absolute on the finding that prayer for pre-emption is not maintainable since the pre-emptor ceased to be the co-sharer before finality of the pre-emption proceeding. Shamsuddin Sarder being dead his heirs- Mst. Sufia Khatun and others vs. Md. Habisuddin Gazi and others (Md. Ruhul Amin JCivil) 3ADC 966
Section 24
The prayer for pre-emption is barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. Wives and children of late Md. Shahed Ali have amicably partitioned the land amongst themselves. The petitioners have not succeeded in proving by mate- rial evidence that they are co-sharers in the case holding. It is evidence that Md. Shahed Ali claimed excusive ownership over the entire 14 decimals of case land. Sufia Begum and others vs.Md. Matiur Rahman @ Khukan (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4ADC 496
A suit for declaration of the plaintiff- respondent's 'rayoti' right to the suit land and for khash possession thereof. On the cloak of a review petition, the same matter cannot be reopened. It has been repeatedly observed by this Division that a review is never meant nor can be allowed to be utilized as another opportunity for rehearing a mat- ter, which has already been closed by a final judgment. Boalkhali Sirajul Islam College vs. Al-haj Ahmed Hossain Chowdhury (Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ) (Civil) 4ADC 499
Section 24
The pre-emptor, a co-sharer of the case jote, had no knowlege of the above. transfer and he came to know about the same only on 3.4.88 and thereafter on 11.4.1988 he filed this miscellaneous case. Md. Kamal and others vs. Md. Hafezur Rahman and others (Md. Tafazzul Islam J(Civil)4ADC 578
Section 24
Pre-emption was sought claiming to be a contiguous land owner. ......(1) Mosharraf Hossain vs.Md. Shahid Ali(MD.Ruhul Amin J) (Civil)5 ADC 296 Section 24, 24(II) (b)
Seeking pre-emption under Section 24
of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949(1) Digandra Chandra Pandith vs. Abdur Razzaque (Md Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 307
Section 24, Sub-section II
As it appears the High Court Division held that since Rafiqul Islam,Asgar Ali and Rejaul Kabir are co-sharers in the tenancy by inheritance and the disputed deed was executed in their favour on 4.4.95,so because of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section II of section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 the pre-emption case is not main- tainable and so the trial court commited error in holding that "বুনিয়াদী শরীকের বিরুদ্ধে প্রিয়েস্পশন দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে কোন বাধা নাই” and so the appellate court rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground of maintainability of the pre-emption application. Md. Babar Ali vs. Md. Shamsul Alam and others (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 5 ADC 312
Section 24
Seeking pre-emption of the sale that took place.....(1) The trial Court rejected the prayer for pre-emption on the finding that the Miscellaneous Case was barred by limi- tation and that the pre-emptor is not a co-sharer....(4) Mr. Tayab Ali being deceased his heirs vs. Md. Ataur Rahman (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5ADC 768
Section 24
The undenied position is that Miscellaneous Case was filed on 17.10.1989 seeking pre-emption of at transaction that took place on April 4. 1978 (the document was registred on August 8, 1978). The pre-emption was sought alleging that the pre-emptor came to know about the transfer for the first time on September 1, 1989 and thereafter he became certain about the transfer upon obtaining certified copy on September 12, 1989. It was alleged that the pre-emptee disclosed about the transfer for the first time in a 'salish' held on September 1, 1989. It is seen from the judgment of the appellate Court that the pre-emptor to establish his case about the knowledge of the transaction did not depose in Court. Pre- emptor's son figured as P.W.1 in the Miscellaneous Case and it is seen form judgment of the appellate Court that said P.W.I although deposed on behalf of his father but there is nothing on the record to show that in the 'salish' where- in disclosure about the transfer was said to have been made P.W.I was present. No explanation was offered as to why the pre-emptor did not depose in the case. Md. Maniruddin vs. Md. Totab Ali (Md. Ruhul Ameen J) (Civil) 5ADC 847
It appears from the record that admitted- ly the Superintendent of Police, Magura took all the disciplinary actions including framing of charge, appointment of enquiry officer, service of second show- cause notice and imposition of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service under the provision of P.R.B. Charge has been framed against the petitioner on the allegations of negligence of duty and misconduct warranting major penal- ty. These two offences are punishable under the Police Officer (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976. After promulgation of the said Ordinance for the offence of misconduct the police officer can be dismissed, removed, dis- charged from service, compulsorily retired and be reduced to lower rank only under the provisions of the ordi- nance and under no other law. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Police Commissioner are the author- ities to impose any of the above penalty upon the Sub-Inspector or sergeant. The Superintendent of Police is not the authority to impose any major penalty upon the sergeant under the Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976. ......(9) Khandkar Md. Mizanur Rahman Hira vs Government of the People's (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5ADC 850
It appears that the High Court Division found that the appellate court did not consider the evidence on record while setting aside the judgment of the trial court and further held that the plaintiff's kabala was earlier on the basis of which they took possession from the admitted co sharer and the defendants are subse- quent purchaser from the plaintiff as well as the co-sharers and they cannot deny the title and possession of the plaintiff. Md. Tasimuddin vs. Md. Mofizul Islam (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 5ADC 854
Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act of 1947
That from the evidence of D.W.4 that by Mahabir Durga Proshad was in posses- sion that on or before 25.9.1956 which statement is totally infractuous with this claim. He purchased from Lal Brothers on 25.9.1956 and not from Mahabir Durga Proshad. This statement clearly provided that he did not got possession from Lal Brothers on 25.9.1996 and in the written statement Ext. 12 also he admitted that he did not got possession till 23.9.1957 which conclusively proved that the defendant no. 2 did not possession of the suit land at any point of time and the defendant no.1 was inducted in possession by Durga Proshad as claimed by the plaintiff and not by the defendant no. 2. Aplatun Nessa Khatun and others vs. Ramprashed Tribedi (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 4ADC 481
The Non-cadre Class-I and II Gazetted Officer (Customs, Excise and VAT) Appointment and Service terms and conditions Act (XX of 2000), Section 8.
The said Act is to regulate the conditions, appointment and terms and conditions of service of the First and Second Class (Non-Cadre) Officer working in the Customs department under the National Board of Revenue and the same not being contrary to the purpose and purport of Article 133, by no means could be termed to be ultra vires the said provision of the Constitution. Bangladesh vs Mohammad Salahuddin Talukder (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J(Civil) 2ADC 443
Section 24
Only a co sharer tenant and none else can pre empt. Mossammat Khursheda Jahan alias Mst. Monju khorsheda vs Syada shafinaz Jahan (K.M Hasan, J.) (Civil) IADC 310
"Since in the instant Cases the holding in question has been separated or sub divided upon opening a new khatian at the instance of the pre-emptor, the pre- emptor cesaed to be a cosharere in the holding in question". Abdul Mutnin alias Tanu Miah vs Mahfujur Rahman (Md. Ruhul Amin. J)(Civil) IADC 515
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24- Pre-emption The trial Court dismissed the pre-emption case mainly on the ground that the preemptor could not prove his date of knowledge about the disputed deed of transfer of the case land and found that the case was barred by limitation. The appellate Court. on the other hand, noted that the pre- emptees were in possession of the case property as tenant and, therefore, it was natural that the pre-emptor would not know about the sale of the property. The appellate Court accepted the explanation given by the pre-emptor about his knowledge regarding the sale and transfer of the case property. The High Court Division faced with judgement of reversal of the appellate Court considered the evidence on record and noted that the pre- emptor did not name the person from whom he came to know about the case kabala either in the application for pre- emption or in his evidence. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement, which in our opinion does not call for any interference. Petitioner for leave to appeal is dismissed. Promotto Das VS Ghosh, [3 LM (AD) 432] Sudip Kumar
Section 24- Pre-emption In a proceeding under section 24 of the Non- Agricultural Tenancy Act the question of co-sharership in the holding or tenancy is immaterial, the question of co-sharership in the 'land' is material. After partition by metes and bounds of the land of a holding or even of a plot or plots among its co- sharers each of such co-sharers loses their co-sharership in all other land of the holding or the plot or plots excepting his own share only even if the holding or tenancy remains in tact and he, therefore, cannot claim pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act if any share or portion thereof of any other owner of this holding or plot is transferred.
The High Court Division has committed wrong in allowing the case for pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act holding that inspite of partition the pre-emptors are still co-sharers of the land transferred since the original holding was not divided and the original tenancy also was not separated. These findings and decision of the High Court Division require to be set aside. ....Asad Ali(Md.) VS Golam Sarwar, [9 LM (AD) 141]
Section 24- We are of the view that the pre-emptor-petitioner is a co-sharer of the case land. At the same time, no notice was issued upon him regarding the sale of the case land and he came to know about the kabala deed for the first time on 01.05.2005 and instituted the case on 19.05.2005, within the time i.e. 4 (four) months from the date of knowledge stipulated in Section 24 of the Non- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. Rafiq(Md.) -VS- Abu Jafor, [10 LM (AD) 328]
Section 24(11)(a)- Pre-emption-
Only separation of Jama/Khatian by a party will cause him to cease to be a co-sharer in the jama but co-sharership will also be ceased by a final decree in a partition suit or by a registered deed of partition- 55 DLR (AD) 108 (Alfazuddin Ahmed Vs. Abdur Rahman), 1 ADC (Abdul Munim alias Tanu Miah Vs. Mahfuzur Rahman and others (1 ADC 515), 54 DLR (AD)126 (Hiran Chandra Dey and others Vs. Md. Abdul Quyum and another) and 62 DLR(AD)250 cases, it appears that this Division held that not only separation of Jama/Khatian by a party will cause him to cease to be a co-sharer in the jama but co- sharership will also be ceased by a final decree in a partition suit or by a registered deed of partition. That means either of the two will cause a person to cease his co- sharership in the case jote. Thus, the 62 DLR case has not overruled the contention that 'only by a partition suit or partition deed the co-sharership is extinguished'. So in this case by separating the Jama the pre- emptor and/or his predecessor having already lost her/his character of co- sharership in the case jote so the pre- emptor is no more a co-sharer and as such his right to pre-empt as a co-sharer does not exist anymore.
Thus the finding and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same does not call for any interference by this Division. This civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Abul Kasem Md. Kaiser -VS- Md. Ramjan Ali, [9 LM (AD) 284]
Section 24
An application before the trial court for delivery of possession. Trial court by his order dated 21.10.2001 allowed the application and issued writ of posses- sion. The process server went to the case land to execute the same but came back and returned the writ unexecuted 26.10.01 with report that he found a pucca building in the suit land. Md. Abdul Wahab vs. Abdul Motaleb (Md. Hassan Ameen J) (Civil) 6 ADC 783
Section 24
Thus the pre-emptors are both co-shar- ers by inheritance and also by purchase in the case holding. The pre-emptors are also contiguous owner of the case hold- ing in northern, southern and western parts. The pre-emptee is a stranger in the case holding. Ahmed Meah Sowda- gar vs. S.M. Abdul Alim (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 859
section 24
The learned Judge of the High Court Division found that the only issue which was decided by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 5 of 1994, instituted by the pre- emptee was in respect of the validity of the deed of Heba bel Ewaj by which Rabeya Khatun transferred the land purchased by her in favour of her son, the pre-emptor. He further found that the question of co-sharership of the pre- emptor was not at all decided in the said suit, as such, it was rightly decided in the instant pre-emption case, al- though against the pre-emptor. On these findings, the learned Judge of the High Court Division held that the issue of co-sharership is not barred by the principle of resjudicata, waiver and ac- quiescence, as submitted on behalf of the pre-emptor. Muhammad Ali vs. Mrs. Khaleda Rahman (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) 7 ADC 568
Section 24
The pre-emptor's case was that he was a co-sharer by inheritance of the case holding while the purchaser was a stranger to that. That the opposite party No.2 sold the case land to the opposite party No.1 pre-emptee at a considera- tion of Tk.5,000/- by a registered deed dated 17.12.1994. Sattyendra Sutrad- har vs. Md. Zillu Miah (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 386
