The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 | Case Reference

The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 

Section 5 of section 18

This appeal is in respect of ejectment of a monthly tenant and for realisation of arrear rent and compensation. ....(3) Praying for a decree for ejectment and compensation against M/s. Anupam Traders represented by Abul Kashem Sowdagar and others, on the ground that the defendant is a defaulter and also for reconstruction of the house. Md. Mon- jur Morshed Chowdhury vs. Haji Abul Kashem Sawdagar (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 8 ADC 319

Section 10- Section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 prohibits acceptance of premium, salami or any money more than one month's rent by the landlord. Similar provision is also provided in the Premises of Rent Control Act, 1991. It says:

"10 Premium, salami or fine not to be claimed, received or asked for or advance or more than one month's rent not to be claimed or received- No person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any premises- (a) claim, receive or invite offers or ask for payment of any pre-mium, salami, fine or any other like sum in addition to the rent; or (b) except with the previous written consent of the Controller, claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month's rent of such premises as rent in advance." Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum, [3 LM (AD) 46]

Sections 13, 27- The non-issuance of rent receipt by the landlord is the offence of the landlord himself-who refuses or fails to issue rent receipt to the tenant- It is clear that the non-issuance of rent receipt is an offence which has been made punishable with fine by this very provision of law. The refusal or failure to issue rent receipt is violation of law (section 13 of Premises Rent Control Ordinance) and as such it is undoubtedly an offence. To curb this type of offence the legislature willfully introduced this section 27 in the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. However, the non-issuance of rent receipt by the landlord is the offence of the landlord himself-who refuses or fails to issue rent receipt to the tenant. For this offence of the landlord his heirs or anybody else cannot be made liable. The person who commits the offence only is liable to be punished, no one else can be punished for the offence of other. The case filed under section 27 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance abated at the death of the landlord defendant. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and that of the appellate court below is hereby affirmed. ... Dulal Kanti =VS= Tapan Singha, [8 LM (AD) 150]

Section 18, 18(2)

That a person continuing in possession after termination of a tenancy in his favour is also a tenant. It is on record that after the expiry of the period of lease the tenant is continuing in posses- sion and is paying rent in the House Rent Control Case No. 367 of 1984 reg- ularly. In that view of the matter, defen- dant is a tenant under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance and in that sense he is a statutory tenant. Rent Control legis- lation is a special law which gives a greater protection to a tenant against eviction so long he pays rent to the full extent allowable by this ordinance and perform the conditions of the tenancy. Abdul Aziz vs. Md. Abdul Majid (Latifur Rahman J)(Civil) 4ADC 458

Present case no contract for lease was executed creating right in favour of the petitioner and therefore, a preliminary decision taken previously having no consistency with the Rule can be recti- fied by the same authority and there- fore, the prior decision in question, does not come under the concept of promis- sory Estoppel as a competent authority is empowered to modify its own deci- sion which is found inconsistent with the Rules and policy to be persuaded in the matter of leasing out Jalmahal.

The petitioner cannot invoke writ juris- diction challenging the above impugned letter by which no disciplinary action has been taken and there is also a forum to seek remedy, if any, against the action taken by the appropriate authority for the alleged illegal act. Towhid Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited VS. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 4ADC 465

The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963

Sections 18 and 19

Make payment of rent not to the Abandoned Property Cell but to the plaintiff. There is also no evidence on record that before 17-2-82 any official communication was addressed to the appellant informing him of the release of the suit building in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In such a special situation, which is unique in nature, we find that the appellant had sent 3 months' rent by postal money order to the plaintiff on coming to know that the suit building has been released in his favour. We also find that on the plain- tiff's refusal to accept the money order the appellant deposited 4 months' rent upto February 1982 by chalan to the Abandoned Property Authority. There was neither any mala fide nor any inten- tional desire to deprive the plaintiff from his claim of rent. Monzur Murshed vs Humayun Majid (Mustafa Kamal J) (Civil) 3ADC 812

Section 18(5)- The petitioners, being defaulters, cannot get the protection of section 18(5) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance- The High Court Division correctly found that the petitioners, being defaulters, cannot get the protection of section 18(5) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. We are of the view that by filing the review petitions the petitioners in fact are seeking rehearing which is not permissible in review. A.T.M. Nasiruddin VS Md. Abdul Khaleque, [4 LM (AD) 38]

Section 19(1)- Tenant was found unauthorized and illegal possessor of the suit premises- The learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sylhet and House Rent Controller by his judgment and order dated 07.04.1999 dismissed the Rent Deposit Case No.21 of 1997 on the ground that since the original tenant Ataur Rahman died, thus the tenant landlord relationship between the petitioners and opposite parties became seized.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Senior Assistant Judge and House Rent Controller, Sylhet, the petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.38 of 1999 before the Court of District Judge, Sylhet, who after consideration of evidence on record by his judgment and order dated 12.07.2001 allowed the miscellaneous appeal by reversing the decision of the House Rent Controller on the reasoning that the landlord and tenant relationship is heritable. Thus, after death of the father of the petitioners they became the tenants and are not the defaulter.

The same was heard and disposed of by a Single Bench of the High Court Division by judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 making the Rule absolute.

The plaintiff-respondent decree holder took possession by evicting the judgment debtor-appellants (judgment and order passed in Title Suit No.26 of 2012) and obtained delivery of possession on 15.09.2013 through the process of the Court in Execution Case No.06 of 2012. It also appears from the record that on 18.09.2013 the judgment debtor filed a petition for not confirming the execution process in the execution case. Fact remains the judgment debtors have been evicted from the suit premises. Admittedly, the appellants are not in possession of the suit land, who were dispossessed from the case premises on 15.09.2013 and as such the tenant and landlord relationship does not exist, which has already been terminated by the process of the Court. Thus, this appeal cannot proceed as the same has become infructuous. ... Masumur Rahman (Md.) =VS= Shahar Banu Begum(Mrs.). [9 LM (AD) 5]

The Premises Rent Control Ordinance, (XX of 1963)

 Section 19

Although the scope of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet before interfering with any finding of fact of the trial court under section 25 of the said Act the High Court Division is to come to finding that such finding of the trial Court suffers from any error of law and for such error the decision of the trial court has been......(6). Md. Nurul Islam vs Md. Ali Hossain Miah. ors (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J) (Civil) 2ADC 964

Section 19

Petitioner praying for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises alleging, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's father, Md. Yakub Ali Sarder, was the owner of the suit premises and the defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant therein and the said Md. Yakub Ali Sarder transferred the suit land by a registered deed of heba-bil-ewaj dated 06.09.1988 in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers Md. Nasiruddin vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J (Civil) 5 ADC 789

Section 20- Under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance a tenant is liable to be evicted (I) if he is a defaulter in payment of rent (II) if the landlord needs the suit premises for bona fide requirement and (III) if the tenant denies the title of the landlord. Even after expiry of the tenure of lease, the tenancy may continue as tenancy by holding over and the tenant is liable to be evicted only on the grounds stated above. ...Intekhab Ahmed Khan VS= Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury, [8 LM (AD) 178]

Section 20- If the landlord accepts rent in respect of any premises sent by postal money order by the tenant, the fact of this acceptance or withdrawal shall not be used in any way as evidence that he has admitted as correct any of the particulars set forth in the postal money order form or in the application for deposit of such rent or that he has waived any notice to quit given by him to the tenant. ...Intekhab Ahmed Khan VS= Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury, [8 LM (AD) 178]

President's Order No.16 of 1972