Law: East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951)

Section: 3,2(23)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

  East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951), Ss. 3 &2(23)-Letting out premises with structures on land-Not within scope of definition of "rent-receiver" unless lease be in perpetuity-Person acquiring vacant land on trans ference and raising structures thereon letting out same as shops to different shop-keepers-Mere realisation of rent from shop-keepers, nor, that his predecessors-in-interest had been rent-receivers does not make such person "rent-receiver" within meaning of S. 2 (23)-Such property cannot be acquired by Government by means of notification, under S. 3 which relates only to "rent receivers".   Abdul Hafez v. Ashraf Ali Choudhury 17 D L R 329 ref.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Second appeal ---Question of fact cannot be gone into in second appeal.   Dates of hearing: 28th and 29th June 1966.   JUDGMENT   MURSHED, C. J.-This appeal raises some important but very simple questions and its genesis may be stated as follows:   A suit was instituted by the plaintiff- appellant society for a declaration that purported claim of acquisition of the suit property by the defendant, Province of. East Pakistan, was void and illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the same. The claim of the Province of East Pakistan rests upon a notification issued under sections 3 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and tenancy Act, 1950 (Act XXVIII of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act), the notification being made in the year 1956.   The suit-property constitutes a market established by the plaintiff society. The gist of the case, in which parties have joined issue, is that, under the aforesaid notification of 1956, the suit-property had vested in the Province of East Pakistan by operation of law, as claimed by the defendant. Plaintiff's contention, on the other hand, is that the suit-property did not so vest in the defendant, as claimed by the latter, because plaintiff is not a rent-receiver in respect of the suit-property within the meaning of the said Act, the notification being one by which only the estates…