MAQSOOD ALAM Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the only question for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division is well-founded in law in upholding the trial Court's decision that the Deputy Commissioner is competent to file written statement in a suit against the Government ''represented by the Military Estate Officer". The suit in which this question has arisen is Title Suit No. 842 of 1981 in the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka, filed by the appellant-plaintiff. It is a suit for ejectment of a monthly tenant, namely, the Government and for realisation of arrear rent along with mesne profits. The Military Estate Officer did not enter appearance or file any written statement; but a written statement was signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and it was accepted by the trial Court upon rejecting the appellant's contention that the Deputy Commissioner got no locus standi to file any write statement on. behalf of the Government in the Ministry of Defence represented by the Military Estate Officer, who is the only officer authorised by law to sign and verify written statement in a suit about a land lying within the Cantonment area.

(2.) Facts of the case, so far necessary for disposal of this appeal, are given below: The appellant's father Aminuddin took lease of a piece of land in Dhaka Cantonment Area for 99 years from the then President of Pakistan in 1966 and constructed a house thereon which was numbered as Premises No. 40. Mohakhali (New D.O.H.S), During the liberation war Aminuddin was stranded in Karachi where he died but his family including his son the plaintiff-appellant, a widow and two daughters was in Dhaka, In the. beginning of 1972, just after liberation, the house was included in the list of Abandoned Properties by the Cantonment Board, but on a representation by the appellant and other heirs of the late Aminuddin, the Executive Officer, who is the authorised officer of the Cantonment Board, struck the house off the list of Abandoned Properties by an order dated 22 September 1972, and by a subsequent order dated 19 March 1974 mutated the names of the appellant and his mother and two sisters as owners of the property. Thereafter, a part of the house in the ground floor, was taken lease of under a Deed of Lease dated 9 August 1974 by the Government of Bangladesh represented by the Military Estate Officer at a monthly rent of Tk. 500/-which was later on raised to, Tk. 750/-. The Military Estate Officer allotted the house to two Naval Officers. The lease was renewed year by year upto June 1981 after which no further renewal was sought. Rent was paid upto April 1981 and since then no rent was paid. The appellant determined the tenancy with effect from 30 September 1981 by serving a notice under the Transfer of Property Act, but as the premises was not vacated the appellant filed the suit, The Military Estate Officer did not file any written statement; but after two years from the date of filing of the suit, a written statement was filed by the Government-Pleader, Dhaka, signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, and later on, an additional written statement was filed by the Deputy Commissioner through the Additional Government Pleader, Dhaka. The plaintiff raised objection to the acceptance of these written statements taking the ground that in this suit against the Government, in the Ministry of Defence, the Military Estate Officer is the only authorised person under Order XXVII Civil P.C. and the Cantonment Act, read along with Military Land Manual, and that Tie Deputy Commissioner got no locus stem It to file written statement. The objection was overruled and the written statements were accepted by the trial Court by orders dated 28-3-85 and 5-5-85. The appellant challenged these orders by a revisional application before the High Court Division, and a learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 11 July 1985, refused to interfere in the matter observing that "when the defendant has filed a written statement signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner it would be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he had authority and instructions to file written statements".

(3.) Mr. T.H. Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant, contends that this observance of the learned Single Judge as quoted above, h totally erroneous, for m the face of clear provision of statutes there was no scope for the Court to draw any presumption in favour of the Deputy Commissioner to file written statement. The learned Counsel has gone straight to Order XXVII of the Civil P.C. and has submitted that rule 1 of that Order has made specific provisions as to who is authorised to sign and verify the plaint or written statement by or on behalf of the Government. For better appreciation of the question raised rule (1) of this Order is quoted below: