March 3, 2024, 8:09 pm

B T Act

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

     More News Of This Category