MOHAMMAD IQBAL AHMED BHUIYAN Vs. SULTAN MAHMUD CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2004 of the High Court Division passed in First Appeal No.502 of 2001 allowing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2001 of the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge) and Arbitration Court Dhaka passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2000 by which the suit was decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent No.1 instituted the above suit seeking declaration that the Memo dated 12.10.1994 cancelling the lease of the suit plot which was allotted to him and the Memo dated 29.10.1994 allotting the suit plot to the defendant No.7 petitioner are illegal, collusive, malafide and those are not binding upon him on the averments that the Ministry of Works, the defendant respondent No.2, established an industrial estate at Mirpur, Dhaka and made many industrial plots therein and therefrom gave allotment of the suit plot measuring 412.33 square yards to him on 14.5.1980 at a premium of Tk.69,581/-; then a lease deed was executed and registered on 4.4.1984 leasing out the above plot to him for 99 years and the possession of the above plot was also delivered to him on that day; after obtaining necessary trade licence and getting his name necessary permission to mortgage the above plot for raising fund the respondent No.1 applied to Janata Bank for loan for establishing an iron and steel industry in the suit plot whereupon Janata Bank sanctioned a loan of Tk.13,00,000/-for the above purpose and by the same he raised sami pucca structures in the suit plot for establishing a factory therein; since the said amount was not sufficient to set up the industry as planned the respondent No.1 requested the above bank for sanctioning Tk.1,50,00,000/-and when the above request for sanction of further loan was under process he suddenly received notice dated 11.9.93 from the office of the defendant/ respondent No.4, to show-cause within 7 days as to why his lease should not be cancelled; he on 26.9.1993 gave reply to the said notice submitting that an iron and steel factory in the name of Mahmud Metal Corporation was set up in the suit plot and the same was already running and then he received Memo dated 12.10.1994 from the defendant-respondent No.4 cancelling his lease and subsequently he also came to know that by Memo dated 29.10.1994 the suit plot was allotted to the petitioner.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 2-5, the respondent Nos. 2-5 herein, contested the suit by filing joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable; the respondent No.1 having failed to set up an industry in the suit plot within two years as stipulated in clause 4 of the lease deed, notices were issued upon him on 11.8.1988 and 11.9.1993 to show cause as to why the lease should not be cancelled; on 26.9.1993 the respondent No.1 showed cause stating that an industry was set up in the suit plot and the same was running but on a survey conducted it was detected that the respondent No.1 did not set tip any industry in the suit plot and accordingly the lease was cancelled by Memo dated 12.10.1994 and then on the basis of the decision of the Ministry of Public Works the suit plot was leased out to the petitioner by Memo dated 29.10.1994 and then the petitioner paying the first instalment on 15.10.1995 claimed delivery of possession and the respondent No.1 having no longer any leasehold right on the suit plot is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.