Decree for Rent Against Tenant Mortgagee in Possession will Bind
B .T. Act(Section 146A)
Decree for Rent Against Tenant Mortgagee in Possession will Bind the tenant that this section does not lay down. Haradas- vs-Moazzam 6 DLR 220
Where provisions under section 26C are complied with purchaser must be made a rent suit under section 146A to give the decree the effect of a rent decree. Kiran -Vs- Jatindra 7 DLR 455
In case of a transfer if the landlord is not notified as required in clause (iii) of sub-section (3) landlord is not found to implead the transferee in a rent suit. Jullfu-Vs-Noab 27DLR 441
B.T.Act (Section 161,167)
There can be no adverse possession against the landlord until the expiration of the lease granted to a tenant.Adverse possession against tenant becomes an incumbrance when it contained for more than 12 years. Dilip- Vs- Santosh 2 DLR 3357
Section 167– Service of notice of annulment is not necessary when the person to be served with notice himself is a part purchaser of the raiyati. Kala – Vs –Abdul 37 DLR 126
Service of notice by itself would not be proved otherwise that there was service of such notice and the encumbrance was in fact annulled.Hossain –Vs- Shaikh 37 DLrR 126
Section 161, 167 – B.T. Act- encumbrance Sub-lease created by an under reyat having no occupancy right is not an encumbrance and need not be annulled,but sub-base created by a raiyat having occupancy right is an encumbrance and requires to annulled.Biswas –Vs – Idris1 BLd(AD) 367
Holding was auction purchased one of the Judgment-debtors in the benami of a third party-other Judgment-debtors file and application under section 173 – it does not come within the purview f section 47 – Art.166 of limitation Act will not be attracted. Juran – Vs – Sushila 7 DLR b 382
Where lower court set aside a sale both under section 173 and 174(3) –appeal under section 174(5) infructuous. Juran – Vs – Sushila 7 DLR b 382
An application under section 173(3) is not an application in execution proceeding.It is an original proceeding order 9 rule 9 of the code of civil procedure applies Munsur – Vs – Dakshina 11 DLR 449
B.T Act (Section 174)
If the auction purchaser wishes to show that in fact the applicant had knowledge of the sale at an earlier date-then that alleged in the application-The onus lies on him to prove such knowledge Khatoomi – Vs – Kader 3 DLR 404
Omission to a state a figure of valuation in sale proclamation does not invalidate the sale-B.T Act does not make any such provision Sundory –Vs – Bhupesh 3 DLR 97Not followed in 5 DLR 81.
Property worth Rs. 3500.00-S.P. gives the valuation at Rs.125.00-soled for Rs. 282.00-this material irregularity was held to be brought about by carelessness of the court-party suffered injury –sale void Phool – Vs – Penn 4 DLR 450,(Not followed in 5 DLR 81).
Gross under valuation amounts to fraud and section 18 of the limitation Act will apply. Noabjan – VS -– Chandra 5 DLR 43
Judgment debtor died after service of sale proclamation-sale held without bringing his heirs on record-held sale void and not voidable. Noabjan – VS -– Chandra 5 DLR 43
1st application by some judgment debtors failed-2nd application by some others sale can be set aside in part.Noabjan – VS -– Chandra 5 DLR 43
Omission to state valuation in the sale proclamation under B.T Act does not render a sale void but it may be an irregularity and when it is the cause of injury the sale is liable to be set aside.Santosh – Vs – Dakhina 5 DLR 81
Sale proclamation need not be served in every village written in Sale Proclamation, Santosh – Vs – Dakhina 5 DLR 81
Admission of appeal spoken of in sub-section(5) is not merely the registering the appeal which is a ministerial work but admission of appeal under order 41 rule 11 of the Code Of Civil Procedure-so appellate can give time to make good the short deposit before admission.Sudhir – Vs – Abinash 5 DLR 451.8 DLR 258
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.