MD. MONZOOR ALAM Vs. NOOR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a monthly tenant of the respondents in respect of the premises in question. He has been ordered to be ejected on the ground of the landlords' bonafide requirement of the premises for the purpose of re-building and re- construction of the building according to an approved plan of the Dhaka Improvement Trust. He is now challenging the High Court Division's order, in Civil Revision No. 1161 of 1982, refusing to interfere with the concurrent decision of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court which decreed the suit for ejectment; the ground taken by the appellant is that the question of bonafide requirement in this case has not been determined on correct construction of section 18 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance and in accordance with the authoritative judicial decisions as laid down in the case of Jagadish Chandra Surker vs. Abdul Aziz, 7 DLR 314 and Abdullah Bal vs. Adam Ali, 13 DLR SC 13.

(2.) The premises in question is No. 4. Asad Avenue, Mohammadpur, Dhaka. It consists of several rooms. The appellant has been occupying one such room as a monthly tenant and running a business there from the time of the previous owner, one Mrs. Amirunnessa. The respondent got title and possession of the entire premises by purchase from Mrs. Amirunnessaa fact about which there is no dispute. The appellant has been paying rent to the new landlords, but the landlords have sought ejectment for re-building and re-construction of the entire building according to the D.I.T. plan which prohibits the use of the premises for any commercial purposes. Both the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court held that the appellant's shop room is required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent decision on a revisional application.

(3.) Dr. Kamal Hossain, learned Counsel for the appellant, has criticized the observation of the High Court Division that the finding that the landlords bonafide required the shop-room is a finding of fact which cannot be gone into on a revisional application. Dr. Hossain contends that the revisional court has got jurisdiction to see whether the finding as to bonafide requirement has been based on proper consideration of evidence on record particularly on correct Interpretation of section 18 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance which refers to 'bonafide requirement'. Relying upon the two decisions in the cases already referred to, Dr. Hossain contends that "bonafide requirement" is not a mere wish, whim or fancy of the landlord, but it means actual necessity of the premises by the landlord. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has referred to the Advocate Commissioner's Report, supported by a photograph of the premises, which shows that the shop-room in question has not been affected by the reconstruction of the building according to the approved plan. He has pointed out that in the original plan this shop-room stood outside the proposed reconstruction; but subsequently the plan was revised and reconstruction was made accordingly; but still the shop-room remained unaffected, and as such, the requirement of the shop-room is not 'bonafide' within the meaning of section 18 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance.