Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAZLUR RAHMAN VS Respondent: NAYEEMA KHATOON
P L D 1963 Dacca 84
P L D 1963 Dacca 84
Before Asir, J
FAZLUR RAHMAN‑---Petitioner
versus
NAYEEMA KHATOON---‑Opposite‑party
Civil Revision No. 165 of 1961, decided on 19th July 1961.
(a) East Pakistan Rent Control Ordinance (XXV of 1961)----- Landlord not precluded from availing better accommodation by utilizing own property provided necessity is bona fide‑Desire to have better accommodation, not to be ignored‑Refusing relief to landlord‑Not approved in circumstances of case.
(b) East Pakistan Rent Control Ordinance (XXV of 1961), S. 17(4)‑Provisions sufficient to test bona fides of requirement of landlord.
Md. Nurul Huda for Petitioner.
Mazhar Hussain with S. M. Abbas for Opposite‑Party.
JUDGMENT
This Rule was obtained against a decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dacca in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 344 of 1960 allowing the landlady opposite‑party's prayer for permission to sue the petitioner in ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirements for her personal use and occupation and also for reconditioning or rebuilding the house in question. The Rent Controller refused the permission but the learned Subordinate Judge reversed his decision.
2. The petitioner has been occupying the first floor and the second floor of the premises No. 31, Larmini Street, Dacca for about 10 years on a monthly rental of Rs. 45 only. The opposite‑party purchased this house sometime in 1958 and since then she has been occupying five rooms in the ground floor. Another room in the same ground floor was occupied by the petitioner in addition to the first and the second floors.
3. The Rent Controller took the view that the existing rooms in the occupation of the landlady opposite‑party were enough for her personal use and occupation and that the rebuild ing and reconditioning of the house in question could be arranged or managed even without turning out the petitioner‑tenant.
4. The learned Additional Judge seems to have considered the pros and cons of the dispute and the questions that had been raised between the parties. He has found that the landlady was under a bona fide necessity to occupy the entire premises for her personal requirements as also for facilitating the rebuilding of the house as sanctioned by the appropriate authorities. In fact, it has been found that the landlady has got three sons, two daughters besides her husband and some relations and servants.
5. This case was heard by me for several days as a question arose as to whether in view of the expiry of the East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1953 which was kept alive till 31st of December 1960, it could be said that this Rule was not competent. It, however, now appears that a new Ordinance No. XXV of 1961, being the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961, published in the Dacca Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 3rd July 1961, has been promulgated and the relevant provisions of this Ordinance No. XXV of 1961, can be said to have come into force on the 1st day of January 1961. It is not disputed by the learned Advocates for the parties that in view of this new Ordinance it is no longer necessary to go into the question as to whether this Rule is incompetent by reason of the expiry of the previous Act, namely, East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1953, which was nothing but a tem porary Act.
6. Mr. Huda appearing for the tenant‑petitioner contends that on merits the learned Additional Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by holding that it was a fit case for according permission. He has taken exception to the observation of the learned Subordinate Judge in so far he has said:
" . . . . . there is no harm if the landlady petitioner requires better accommodation of her family in the entire premises of her purchase after reconditioning the building of her choice."
7. It can hardly be disputed that the premises in question is the property of the opposite‑party and that as such she has got a right to use it for her purposes in accordance with law. It is not unreasonable to think that a landlord or a owner of a house may have family members or other dependents who might grow in number and might also require more accommodation from time to time. It is difficult to think that a person, though an owner of a house or otherwise capable of occupying the entire house for his or her own use and personal needs should be refused to enjoy that property in that way just for the sake of accommoda ting a person who might have been inducted into the premises as a tenant at a time fox considerations which may not be appro priate at a later stage when such owner of the house might require the same for his or her own use and occupation. I do not think that any provision in the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961 (East Pakistan Ordinance XXV of 1961) precludes the owner of a house from availing of a better accommodation by utilising his or her own property. It is true that the owner concerned must have a bona fide necessity for using and occupying the entire house but while determining the question as to bona fide necessity the desirability of allowing the landlord or the landlady of having better accommodation should not be ignored or overlooked. In my view, therefore, the observation of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge as quoted above seems to be quite reasonable and in order in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The exception taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to such observation of the learned Subordinate Judge does not seem to be well‑founded or reasonable.
8. It has also been found that the requisite plan for rebuild ing the house has been sanctioned by the appropriate authorities. In this view of the matter, do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with the material irregularity in so far he has disagreed with the findings of the Rent Controller that existing rooms of the ground floor in occupation of the landlady are sufficient for accommodation to herself and her family members and that the landlady can even execute the reconditioning of the building of her choice according to‑the sanctioned plan keeping the tenant in occupation of the first floor and second floor and even a room of the ground floor. I am also inclined to think that the finding of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that the landlady had bona fide necessity for getting vacant possession from the tenant, is justifiable in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. It may not be out of place to mention in this connection that section 17(4) of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961 provides that if the landlord after recovering possession fails to occupy the house or to commence the rebuild ing thereof within two months of the date of vacating the premises B by the previous tenant and the said premises are re‑let within six months to any person other than the previous tenant, then the Controller at the request of the previous tenant can put him back into possession if so desired within seven months of his vacating the premises. This indicates that there is sufficient provision for checking as to whether grounds for requirements) are bona fide or not.
10. For all these reasons I am inclined to think that the contention as raised on behalf of the petitioner must be overruled.
The result, therefore, is that this Rule is discharged with costs‑hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.
S. B./A. H.
Rule discharged.