MD. LAYEK KHAN Vs. ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2727 of 2003 discharging the Rule and affirming the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 2003 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Sylhet, in Small Cause Suit No.9 of 1999 decreeing the same.

(2.) Facts, as placed before the High Court Division, in short, are that the respondent as plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit No.9 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Sylhet, impleding the petitioners as defendants for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. Plaintiffs case is that the defendants were inducted as Bharatia in the suit premises on monthly rental of Tk.120/- vide agreement dated 04.08.1980 and the rent was increased to Tk.250, that it was agreed in May, 1991 that the rent would be increased and when the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent from July, 1995, defendants did not comply and the plaintiff did not take rent when the defendants tendered the rent for the month of July, 1995 and the defendant thereafter did not pay rent and became defaulter. The plaintiff finding no other alternative served a notice upon the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminates the agreement from 23.11.1995 and asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises as per agreement. The defendant after receiving the notice by the plaintiff filed the case before the Rent Control being Rent Control Case No.21 of 1995 for depositing rent in Court which was ultimately dismissed and against the said dismissal order the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge which is still pending. The defendant having not vacated the suit premises hence the suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement, contending, inter alia, that they obtained the suit premises by a Bharatia Agreement on a rent of Tk. 120/- as monthly rent and continue to hold the premises as tenant. The defendants further stated in their written statements that the defendants gradually increased the monthly rent of Tk. 120/- to Tk.250/- till date and regularly paying the rent. Due to pressure by the plaintiff, the defendant had to increase the monthly rent up to Tk.250/- in the month of July, 1999 when the defendant again, sent the rent of Tk.250/- the plaintiff did not accept the rent. Thereafter, the defendant started depositing rent to the rent control regularly. The plaintiff has got other six shops which have been also let out to different person and the suit is liable to be dismissed.