In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

High Court Division

(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Ashish Ranjan Das

Civil Revision Case No. 09 of 2016 In the matter of:

Olympia Palace Restaurant Limited represented by its partners-Md. Jamil Uddin and another

         ......... Petitioners

-Versus –

Far East Islamic Life Insurance, Co. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, 35, Topkhana Road, P.S.-Shahbagh, Dhaka and others

                 ..... Opposite parties.  Mr. Md. Golam Arshed, Advocate

        ………For the Petitioner. Ms. Salma Hai Tuny. Advocate

                  .....for the opposite parties.

Heard and judgment on: 27.06.2018.

Ashish Ranjan Das, J.:

 This has been an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the propriety of the order dated 07.12.2015  and  22.12.2015  passed  by  the  learned  District  Judge, Dhaka  in  Rent  Control  Miscellaneous  Appeal  NO.  303  of  2015 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to restore water connection.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the contesting parties and perused the application along with the annexures.

Admitted position is that the petitioner has been a tenant and the  premises  has  been  owned  by  the  opposite  party  and  for  the purpose they reached an agreement Annexure-A. However, on and on dispute  arose  between  the  parties  for  which  the  petitioner  have brought Rent Control Case No. 61 of 2015 in the court of House Rent Controller  and  Ex-Officio,  Assistant  Judge,  4th  Court,  Dhaka.  It appears that at the time of issuance of the Rule this court passed an interim order directing the opposite party to restore the electricity and water connection to the tenanted suit premises that is Olympia Palace Restaurant  Ltd.  36,  Topkhana  Road,  2nd  floor,  Police  Station- Shahbagh, Dhaka within 24 hours from the time of receipt of the order.

The above interim order was challenged by the opposite party in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 367 of 2016 wherein their Lordships  finally  were  pleased  to  direct  this  court  to  decide  the revisional application on merit within a definite time.

Now the position is that the petitioner has admittedly been a tenant in the suit premises under the opposite party and depositing rent in the Court of Rent Controller by bringing a regular case. But meanwhile  the  landlord  snatched  away  utility  connections  like electricity and water. The learned Advocate for the petitioners agitated that the landlord opposite party has illegally snatched away utility connections while the reply from the other side is that it was done so by the concerned utility services authority of the Government. This has been a disputed question of fact not to be looked into in this forum.

Now since at the time of issuance of the Rule an ad-interim order was passed directing the opposite party to restore electricity and water connections on an urgent basis, that is within 24 hours and since the Hon’ble Appellate Division while sending down the matter did not specifically mention that such ad-interim order passed at the time of issuance of the Rule to remain stayed. It is evident that the ad-interim order passed dated 12.01.2016 has been standing good. But as has been noted earlier that those disputed facts require to be resolved by the court below and in that event it would be lawful and just to send down the matter to the learned lower appellate court directing him to decide the matter within a sharp definite time and in the mean time as has been hinted above the ad-interim order for restoration of utility services  passed  by  this  court  dated  12.01.2016  shall  continue  till disposal of the appeal in the lower appellate court. Hence the learned District Judge, Dhaka the lower appellate court is directed to decide the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 303 of 2015 within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and meanwhile to ensure that the order  passed  by  this  court  dated  12.01.2016  for  restoration  of electricity and water supply has been complied with. However, this observation and direction shall have no bearing upon the merit of the case while deciding the appeal. With the observation and direction the Rule is disposed of.

However, there is no order as to costs.

The order of direction granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby vacated.

The office is directed to communicate this judgment and order to the Courts below at once.

Justice Ashish Ranjan Das.

Bashar B.O