TAJABUNNESSA Vs. MRS. NAZMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from Civil Revision Nos. 352 and 353 of 1975 decided by a Single Judge of the High Court Division, Comilla (A.T.M. Afzal, J.) on 12th February, 1984.

(2.) Plaintiffs' predecessor Abdul Aziz Bepari instituted S.C.C. Suit No.1 of 1973 in the court of Small Causes Court Judge-cum-Munsif, 1st Court, Chandpur for eviction of defendant- respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit premises. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the suit. Defendant No. 2 was brought in and given possession of two rooms without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff Abdul Aziz Bepari who never recognised her as tenant. Appellants case was that defendant No.1 was a habitual defaulter. Further, the plaintiff bonafide required the suit premises for his own business. He served notices under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon both defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The tenancy was thus terminated on the expiry of December, 1972. As the defendant did not vacate the premises in question, suit for eviction was instituted. Defendant No. 2 who is respondent No.1 in this appeal alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. Her case was that she purchased the bharatia right of suit room from defendent No.1 who is respondent No. 2 herein with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff who on accepting some rents from her recognised her as tenant in the suit room. Further she did not get any notice and also the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own use. Neither she nor defendant No.1 was habitual defaulters.

(3.) Trial court decreed the suit and directed that the plaintiff do get khas possession of the suit remises by evicting defendant Nos.1 and 2 therefrom Defendant No. 2 moved the High Court Division under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act and contended, inter alia, that as she was not a tenant under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 present suit for eviction was not maintainable against her.