Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4687 = 1965 SLD 4687 = 1965 PLD 288
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 225 of 1964, decided on 3rd August 1964.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan, J
R. Islam for Petitioner.   T. H. Khan for the Opposite-Party.

MUHAMMAD NUR UL ISLAM alias NUR UL ISLAM-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  ANANTA RAM SARMA-Opposite-Party

Law: Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961

Section: 8(3)

Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961),   S. 8 (3) and Sch., Part 1, Sec. B & Part 11, Sec. B-Monthly rent payable by tenant for use and occupation of premises-Money payable under contract-Case falls under Part 1, Sec. B and not Part II Sec. B of Schedule-Conciliation Court, by majority of three to two, has jurisdiction to pass decree-Failure certificate need not be issued in such case under S. 8(3).     ORDER   The petitioner, claiming to be the landlord of the opposite party, filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 700 arrears of rent for a period of thirty five months beginning from Sravan, 1367 B. S. to Jaishta, 1370 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 20 per month before the Union Committee. The opposite party admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the shop room by the petitioner and paid rent accordingly up to the time from which the petitioner claimed the defendant to have defaulted in payment. But later on when he came to know that the petitioner's lessor had no subsisting title as decided between the two contesting Sebaits of the deity, he defaulted in payment of rent to the petitioner and instead paid to the present Sebait as per decree passed in that suit.   The Conciliation Court by a majority of three to two found that the opposite-party was liable to pay Rs. 700 as arrears of rent and accordingly decreed it. Whereupon the opposite-party moved the District Judge under clause `b' to subsection (2) of section 8 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961). The learned District Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the decision of the Conciliation Court as according to him, the case fell under Section B, Part 11 of the Schedule to the Conciliation Court's Ordinance and sent the case back to the Chairman of the Conciliation Court with a direction to issue a certificate to the petitioner stating that the conciliation had failed, as provided under subsection (3) of the section 8 of the Ordinance. Hence this Rule.   It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as the opposite-party admitted to have been inducted as a monthly tenant in the shop premises by the petitioner the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register