BASHIR AHMED Vs. AYUB ALI MOLLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner arises out of an application under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act, 1887 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1996 passed by the 4th Court of Assistant Judge and SCC Judge, Dhaka in SCC Suit No. 03 of 1994 dismissing the suit.

(2.) Petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit in question for ejectment of the defendant-opposite party, a monthly tenant, stating, inter alia, that the suit property originally belonged to Fulesa Khatun who transferred the suit premises by a deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff, her son and that defendant had been a monthly tenant in the suit premises on the basis of an agreement dated 6-6-1970 and that the defendant was aware of the transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff who was at first informally notified and later by a registered letter dated 7-3-93 he was so informed and thus was attorned and that the defendant is defaulter in respect of payment of rent who stopped payment of rent from December, 1992 and the plaintiff was also in bona fide requirement of the suit premises and, as such, a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served upon the defendant terminating his tenancy and still defendant did not vacate the suit premises and so the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) Opposite party as defendant contested the suit filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and stating, inter alia, that the defendant was not liable to be evicted from the suit property in view of Clause-H in the agreement and that the defendant offered rent of December, 1992 in favour of the plaintiff but the rent was not accepted nor the rent of January, 1993 was accepted by the landlord and the rent being sent to the landlord by money order the defendant filed House Rent Case No. 5 of 1993 and that the defendant was not aware of the transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and that since the defendant deposited rent in the HR Case No. 5 of 1993 he was not a defaulter.