P L D 1961 Dacca 273 (PLP)

This Rule was obtained by one Abdul Gafur who claims to be the tenant of the opposite‑parties in respect of a shop room in the town of Dacca. The petitioner's case is : That he was a tenant of the suit premises for long many years under one Krishna Mohan Paul and his mother Sora Sundari Paul at a rental of Rs. 35 per month ; that in 1954 the petitioner gave up the tenancy of the premises in favour of his son‑in‑law, Shamsul Alam, and left for Mymensingh. This surrender of tenancy in favour of his son‑in‑law was by a written agreement and the fact thereof was intimated to the land lords, Krishna Mohan Paul and Sora Sundari Paul, who, on their turn, accepted Shamsul Alam as their tenant ; that two years thereafter, i.e., in 1956, the petitioner came back from Mymen singh where he had gone in connection with another business in 1954 and took back the premises from his son‑in‑law on a written agreement and the fact of such taking back was intimated to the landlords ; that in March 1958 some trouble arose between the petitioner and the said landlords and as a result the landlords refused to accept rents from him. Thereupon the petitioner is said to have remitted rents to the landlords by Postal Money Order, but the same not having been accepted, the petitioner moved the House Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent in H. R. Case No. 237 of 1958. The permission sought was granted. Against the said permission granted by the House Rent Con troller, the landlords preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner accordingly deposited rents till November 1958. Sometime in November 1958, the present opposite‑parties pur chased the suit premises from the old landlords, Krishna Mohan Paul and Sora Sundari Paul, and thereafter the opposite‑parties filed H. R. Case No. 517 of 1958 on 15‑11‑58 before the House Rent Controller, Dacca, against Shamsul Alam and the petitioner, for permission to sue them for eviction on grounds of default and bona fide requirement. The petitioner's further case is that having got scent of this transfer of the premises in favour of the opposite‑parties, he offer ed them rents which, on their refusal, was sent by Postal Money Order, and that too being refused, he went before the House Rent Controller for permission to deposit rent in Court under section 21 of the E. B. Premises Rent Control Act. The case was numbered as H. R. Case No. 252 of 1959. This case filed by the petitioner for permission to deposit rent was fixed for hearing on 12‑8‑

59. The petitioner alleges that the House Rent Controller did not take any evidence, oral or documentary, on behalf of the petitioner although he was ready with his witnesses and documents, and having heard only the other side and taking into consideration the certified copy of a judgment in a Criminal case, dismissed the application of the petitioners. On appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dacca confirmed the order of the House Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The opposite parties have appeared by filing an affidavit‑in- opposition. The opposite parties have controverted almost all the facts stated by the petitioner in his petition. The opposite- parties' case is : that the petitioner surrendered his tenancy in 1954 in favour of his son‑in‑law, Shamsul Alain, and did not re‑enter into tenancy of the said premises thereafter ; that Shamsul Alam was paying rent regularly to the previous landlords, Krishna Mohan Paul and Sora Sundari Paul, but for sometime he, having failed to pay the rents, became a defaulter, and as such the opposite parties, after their purchase, filed H. R. Case No. 517 of 1958 seeking permission to file a suit for ejectment of Shamsul Alam and also the petitioner from the premises. Their further case is that no intimation about the taking back of the premises from Shamsul Alam by the petitioner was ever given either to their predecessors‑in‑interest or to them, nor did the peti tioner ever pay any rents to their predecessors‑in‑interest since his relinquishment of the tenancy in 1954. 'They further allege that sometime in 1958 the petitioner and his son Abdul Bari, petitioner in Civil Revision Case No. 761 of 1960, illegally confined Krishna Mohan Paul, the previous landlords and forcibly obtained from him a receipt for rent in the name of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises and in respect of a but which the petitioner's son Abdul Bari, the petitioner in Civil Revision Case No. 761 of 1960, put up in the vacant land of the said premises as a trespasser without permission or authority of the landlord. Krishna Mohan Paul immediately thereafter filed a Criminal Case against the petitioner and his son for his illegal confinement by them and for obtaining forcibly from him a receipt against his will. The peti tioner and his son were found guilty under the said charge, and were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. They did not prefer any appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence. The opposite parties further assert in their affidavit‑in‑oppo sition that the petitioner did not take any witnesses on the date of hearing of the case, i.e., on 12‑8‑59 ; nor did take documentary evidence before the House Rent Controller. The petitioner filed a hajira for himself. Even then he did not put himself in the box to be examined. The opposite‑parties further assert that it is not a fact that the House Rent Controller heard the arguments of only the lawyer of the landlords and not of the petitioner‑tenant. They say that the lawyers of both the parties were heard by the House Rent Controller. There is no affidavit‑in‑reply to the affidavit‑in‑opposition filed by the opposite‑parties. Mr. Hakim, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, more‑or- less argued the facts stated in his petition. He submitted that the House Rent Controller has no authority to go into the factum of the relationship of landlord and tenant and that he is more‑or- less a conduit pipe and must necessarily accept whatever deposit is offered by a tenant and pass it on to the landlord named in the petition for permission to deposit the rent. He submitted that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the House Rent Controller is not a conduit pipe but has the powers to go into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and come to a decision for the purpose of accepting deposit of rent or for the purpose of permitting the landlord to sue the tenant for ejectment. Mr. Hakim, in support of his contention that the House Rent Controller is a conduit pipe, relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Md. Akhtar v. Md. Abdus Saddique (8DLR272). No doubt the aforesaid decision lays down that, when a tenant applies for rent to be deposited with the permission of the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller shall permit him to deposit the Rent. But that decision, in my view, is based on facts completely different from the facts for consideration by me in the present case. It is true that where a tenant who was lawfully inducted by the landlord into the premises wants to deposit rent on the ground that the landlord is refusing to accept the same for reasons best known to him, the House Rent Controller shall permit him to deposit the rent. The deposit of rent before the House Rent Controller does not in any manner affect the rights and liabilities of the landlord, as provided for in section 22 of the Act. But can that be said in respect of a person who on his own showing surrendered his tenancy in favour of another person who still continues to be the tenant of the premises ? In my view, a tenant, who has surrendered his tenancy in favour of some other person and has not been paying rent for the premises since surren der and also that when the next tenant has been paying rent regularly and has been accepted by the landlord as the tenant by accepting rents from him and granting receipts therefore, cannot for the purpose of such facts claim to be a tenant who can get permission from the House Rent Controller to deposit rent. And' in the case of such a person claiming to be a tenant, I think the House Rent Controller can go into the factum of the relationship of landlord and tenant. If there was a question of doubt or, in other words, if even after surrender of the tenancy the tenant could produce any rent receipts showing that he is still paying the rent for the premises, I think the position would be different. In such a case, be can certainly claim permission to deposit the rent and the Rent Controller cannot refuse such a permission. This and the case for consideration before the Division Bench are types of cases which are contemplated by the observations of the learned Judges in the said case quoted above. The fact that the petitioner did not produce any witnesses or any documents before the House Rent Controller is established from the affidavit‑in‑opposition which has not been controverted by the petitioner. Over and above this, I asked Mr. Hakim to produce before me any rent receipts that his client might have had after 1954 in his name issued by the previous landlords, but the rent receipts that he produced before me, none of them showed that his client Abdul Gafur is mentioned as a tenant. On the contrary, all the rent receipts were in the name of Shamsul Alam from 1954 right up to the time Shamsul Alain became a defaulter under the previous landlords. I, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that he was prepared with his witnesses or docu ments on the date of hearing before the House Rent Controller. Nor I am prepared to accept the allegation of the petitioner that the House Rent Controller refused to hear his lawyer and admit his evidence or hear his witnesses. In the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that the House Rent Controller was not wrong in refusing permission to the peti tioner to deposit rent nor the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was wrong in upholding the said decision of the House Rent Controller. The opposite parties have filed a case for permission to sue Shamsul Alam and the petitioner for ejectment from the premises on grounds of default and bona fide requirement. Since the peti tioner has been made a party to the said proceedings, I do not see how the petitioner will be prejudiced if he is not allowed to deposit the rent in his case, i.e., H. R. Case No. 252 of 1959. Since the opposite parties have brought him on record in H. R. Case No. 517 of 1958, he can very well agitate and establish the factum of his continuing as a tenant in the premises and also that he has taken back the premises from his son‑in‑law, Shamsul Alam, on his return in 1956, as alleged by him. In case he can establish to the satisfaction of the Courts below the fact of his continuing as a tenant, I do not see any reason why he will suffer any irrepara ble loss or injury. In these circumstances, I discharge the Rule with costs. Hear ing fee is assessed at one Gold Mohur. C. R. 761 of 1960 This Rule was obtained by one Abdul Bari, the son of the Petitioner in Civil Revision Case No. 762 of 1960. His case, according to the admission of his learned Advocate Mr. Hakim, is that he was not inducted into the premises as a tenant by the landlord, but he himself put up the but in which he is running a Bakery and he demanded of the landlord to accept him as a tenant. The landlord having refused, he went to the House Rent Controller to seek permission to deposit rent. The House Rent Controller has refused permission. On appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has confirmed the order of the House Rent Controller. The two appeals were heard analogously by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and were dealt with in the same judgment. On the very admission of Mr. Hakim that he is not a tenant in the premises, I think the House Rent Controller or for that matter the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting permission to the petitioner Abdul Bari for depositing rent. The Rule accordingly is discharged ; but since Mr. Hakim has confessed the facts candidly, I don't think any costs should be awarded in this Rule. A. H. Rule discharged.