দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

APPELLATE DIVISION

                 PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider

CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.2209 of 2016.

(From the judgment and order dated 27.03.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.3522 of 2016.)

WITH

CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.1059 of 2016.

(From the judgment and order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.2870 of 2016.)

Banichitra Pratisthan Limited:         Petitioner.

In C.P.No.2209 of 2016)

Banichitra  Pratisthan  Limited  and  Petitioners. another:  In C.P.No.1059 of 2016)

=Versus=

Bilkis Begum and others:  Respondents. (In C.P.No.2209 of 2016)

Government of Bangladesh and others:  Respondents (In C.P.No.1059 of 2016)

For the Petitioner:  Mr. Sheik Fazle-Noor-Taposh, Advocate, (In C.P.No.2209/2016) instructed by Mrs. Madhumaloti Chowdhury Borua, Advocate-on-Record.


For the Petitioners: (In C.P.No.1059/2016)

For the Respondent: (In C.P.No.2209/2016)

For the Respondent No.8: (In C.P.No. 1059/2016)

For the Respondent Nos.1-7: (In C.P.No. 1059/2016)


Mr. Sheik Fazle-Noor-Taposh, Advocate, instructed by Chowdhury Md. Zahangir, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr.  Abdul  Matin  Khasru,  Senior Advocate, (with Mr. A.M. Aminuddin, Senior Advocate) instructed by Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Chowdhury, Advocate- on-Record.

Mr. A.M. Aminuddin, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record.

Not Represented.


Date of hearing.  : 16th August, 2016

J U D G M E N T

Surendra Kumar Sinha, CJ: These petitions arise out of  an  interim order. Though it is not


1

desirable to enter into the merit of the case in such matters, important questions of law in these matters are involved and as the parties have been litigating over the dispute for a long time, it is desirable that it should be resolved finally with a view of avoiding multiplicity of litigations and it will also augment the administration of justice. It is worth mentioning here that there has been infringement of law by the landlords and tenants in dealing with tenancy relationships. We have noticed in good number of cases that a practice has been developed by the landowners that after constructing super markets in city areas they use to realise a sustaintial amount of money from the traders as advance/salami/possession sale without executing proper deeds and evict them after expiry of the tenure and sometimes enhance the monthly rent. This type of transactions is unauthorised and illegal. This court feels that there should be a guideline in this regard and in the absence of a decision on the point in issue similar problems would recur in respect of other tenants. Therefore, this is a proper case to resolve the issue. In deciding the law point, it is necessary to narrate short facts which are as under:

Plot Nos.14, 37, 41 and 43 of Gulshan-1, Dhaka measuring an area of one Bigha fifteen Kathas twelve Chattaks of land are commercial plots and the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) leased out these plots of land in favour of the petitioners “evYx wPÎ cªwZôvb wjwg‡UW” and “PjwPÎ cªwZôvb wjwg‡UW”. They constructed a multi storey building thereon and leased out to 725 lessees as shops. The shop keepers formed a Co- operative Samity under the name “Gulshan Shopping Center Dokan Malik Bohumukhi Somobay Samity Limited”. These tenants have been carrying on business thereon, some of them since 1977 and some of them since 1998 on cosmetics, stationeries, cookeries, electronic goods, garments, furniture etc. By lapse of time the building is not suitable

for the purpose of carrying on business for various reasons. More so, the owners made expansion of 2/3 floors without prior permission of RAJUK and leased out to the tenants. The tenants claimed that due to rise of price of the land and building in posh area like Gulshan, the owners adopted various devices to somehow evict them with a view to reconstructing a multi-storey building thereon for financial gains and an officer of RAJUK made a surprise visit with an Executive Magistrate and found unauthorised constructions violating the Building Construction Act, 1952 and the Magistrate disconnected the electricity line and fined the owners. This has caused lot of sufferings to the businessmen that lead to financial loss. The Samity made repeated requests to DESCO for reconnection of the electricity but no fruitful response has been received from the authority. On the other hand, the owners claimed that a fire broke out sometimes in 2003 and the building was unfit for use of the shop keepers and accordingly they served notice upon the president and secretary of the association for vacating possession for demolition of the building. The shop keepers took repeated times and they filed Writ Petitions against the actions of the owners for eviction and unless the building is demolished, there is risk of loss of lives.

One writ petition has been filed by two tenants seeking the following relief:

“To issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents No. 1-3 to show cause as to why the Inaction of the respondents to re- connect the electricity with the meter being no.185923 and DHK-19942 of the petitioner’s shops premises situated at Gulshan Shopping Centre Complex in plot No 14,37,41 and 43 Gulshan-1, Dhaka should not be declared illegal, malafide, arbitrary, unreasonableness, without jurisdiction and is of no legal effect, AND as to why

direction upon the respondents No.1-3 to re-connect the electricity connection with the meter being No 185923 and DHk-19942 of the petitioners shop premises and released the electric sub-station of the Gulshan shopping Centre Complex from seale condition at Gulshan Shopping Centre Complex stand in RAJUK plot No.14,37,41 and Gulshan-1, Dhaka should not be given and after hearing the parties and perusing the cause shown, if any, make the Rule absolute.”

The owners sought the following relief in another petition:

 “To issue Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the failure of the respondents to take action against the unauthorized construction upon the plot Nos. 14,37,41 & 43 of Gulshan-1, namely “Gulshan shopping Centre Complex” in

pursuance of the observations and directions given in the judgment of Writ petition No. 2321 of 2007 (Annexure-E) and letter dated 02.03.2003 sent by the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-j) should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect, And to show cause as to why direction should not be given upon the respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction upon the plot Nos.14, 37, 41 & 43 of Gulshan -1, namely “Gulshan shopping Centre Complex”, and as to why re-connection of electricity should be given to the “Gulshan Shopping Centre Complex”.”

The High Court Division disposed of Writ Petition No.3522 of 2016 filed by one of the shop keepers observing that the writ petitioner had rights to get a reply of her representation from the

writ respondents and accordingly directed the writ respondents to dispose of the writ petitioner’s representation dated 9.3.2016 within 10 days. No ad- interim order was passed in the other writ petition. The owners-petitioners made the above leave petitions against the said interim order. In Civil Petition No.1059 of 2016, the learned Judge-in- Chamber made an ad-interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of reconnection of electricity in the building.

It appears that the shop keepers through its association moved Writ Petition No.2321 of 2007 against the actions of the writ respondents from evicting them from the market. A Division Bench of the High Court Division disposed of the rule with certain observations. In the judgment it was noticed that fire broke at the time of construction causing serious damage and destruction to the building. It was observed that the owners who are the lessees of RAJUK did not come to court; that the shop keepers were compelled to move the petition against the threatened action of the writ respondent No.2; that the constructions were made without any approved plan from RAJUK; that for safety and security of the persons in occupation, the owners should take appropriate steps in respect of the building and to allow the writ petitioners a reasonable time for an alternative accommodation with reasonable relocation or compensation on the basis of claim made by writ respondent Nos.7 and 8.

Another writ petition was filed by shop keepers association being Writ Petition No.2913 of 2008 in which a Division Bench of the High Court Division disposed of the writ petition with the observation that in view of the directions made by the High Court Division in the earlier writ petition for making enquiry about the existence of any approved plan for construction of the building, no further order was called for in the matter.


1

Two suits being Title Suit Nos.1632 of 2008 and 2310 of 2008 are also pending in the 8th Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka out of which Civil Revision Nos.1801 of 2010 and 1800 of 2010 arose. In title suit No.2310 of 2008, the tenants claimed possessory rights in respect of the shop premises. The High Court Division stayed the operation of the judgment in Writ Petition No.2321 of 2007 by a judgment in Civil Revision No.1801 of 2010 which arose out of title suit No.2310 of 2008. Similar order was also made in another civil revision. In C.P. No.1556 of 2016 also the learned Judge-in-Chamber made an order of stay and this order of stay was extended till disposal of the petition. In C.P. No.2209 of 2016 which arose out of an order made in Writ Petition No.3522 of 2016, this court passed an order of status-quo in respect of reconnection of the electricity line in the shops of the building.  

Admittedly the landlords and the tenants executed lease deeds reserving rights of the tenants that they “shall have the right to transfer (of) possession of the schedule shop room with prior written consent of the first party (landlord) and on payment of Tk........... to the first party as transfer fee”. It was also stipulated that even if the landlords transfer, assign, bequeath or mortgage the ownership of the property, the tenancy shall be continued even after such transfer. Arbitration clauses were also enshrined for resolving the disputes if any arose between the parties over the terms of the agreements in accordance with the Arbitration Act. Admittedly the landlords have received huge amount of money from the tenants as consideration for sale of the possession of the shop premises and they have acknowledged the receipt of the money. The amount of money received by the landlords for the space of the shop premises and the dates are mentioned below:

wemwgj−vwni ivngvwbi ivwng

¸jkvb kwcs †m›Uvi †`vKvb gvwjK gûgyLx mgevq mwgwZ wjt

we-130/GÎ, ¸jkvb kwcs †m›Uvi (5g Zjv) ¸jkvb-Ñ, XvKv-1212|

wbeÜb bs-00753, †gvevBjt01965-155766

m~Ît  ZvwiLt------------------

BANICHITRA PRATISTHAN LTD. Gulshan, Dhaka

LIST OF SHOPS WITH AREA Ground Floor

Payment Period 1977


Shop No. Name of Tenant  Area B-1   Md. Idris Ali   270  B-2   Md. Badrul A'arn & other  255 B-3   Md. Waziulla & other  270 B-4   Md. Azizul Haque  255  B-5   Mrs. Jahnnarz. Degum 210 B-6  Mrs. Jahanara Begum 210 B-7   Ali Ahmed Talukder  255 B-8   KAB.M Ruhullah  270 B-9   Md. Anwar Hossain Bnuyan 255  B-10  Md. Belayet Hossain 270 B-11  Md. Hannan Miah  226.5 B-12  Md. Anisur Rahman  225 B-13  Mrs. Tahara Khatun 228 B-14  Mr. Faruque Ahmed  228  B-15  Md. Abdul Kader  228  B-16  Md. Jahirul Islam  228  B-17  Md, Yunus Ali   228  B-18  Md. Jamir Uddin Sarcer  228 


Floor Sqf 850/- Price

2,29,500.00  2,16,750.00 2,29,500.00 2,16,750.00 1,78,500.00 1,78,500.00 2,16,750.00 2,29,500.00 2,16,750.00 2,29,500.00 1,92,525.00 1,91,250.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00  


1

B-19  Md. Abdul Gofur Patwary 79 67,150.00  B-19/A Md. Nazrul Islam  37.5            31,875.00 B-20  Md. Harun-ur-Rashid 228   1,93,800.00 B-21  Iqbal Ahmed Parvez 228   1,93,800.00 B-22  Mrs. Jannatul Ferdous 228   1 ,93,800.00 B-23  Mohammad Hossain.  228   1 ,93,800.00 B-24  Md, Mizanur Rahman Helal  228   1,93,800.00 B-25  Md. Abul Hashem  228   1,93,800.00 B-27  Md. Abu Taher  110            93,500.00 B·28  Marjan Hossain  168   1 ,42,800.00 B-29  Mr. Asaduzzaman Faisal 168  1 ,42,800.00 B-30  Md. Abdul Aziz Khan 168   1 ,42,800.00 B-31  Mrs. Runu Wahab Khan 168  1,42,800.00 B-32  Mrs. Rafia Khatun Lovely 168   1,42,800.00 B-33  Md. Mizanur Rahman Helal 252  2,14,200.00 B-34  Masudul Islam Babul  252   2,14,200.00 B-35  Md. Abdul Mannan & other 252  2,14,200.00 B-36  Alhaj Md. Abul Hashem 252  2,14,200.00 B-37  Mrs. Rehana Begum   252  2,14,200.00 B-38  Md. Abul Hossain   252  2.14,200.00 B-39  Md. Abdur Rashid  252  2,14,200.00 B-40  Md. Khairul Alam   252 2,14,200.00 B-41  Md. Anisuzzaman   252 2,14,200.00 B-42  Wali Ahmed & other   252   2,14,200.00


1

B-43  Md. Anwar Hossain   182   B-44  Md. Abul Hossain.   182 B-45 .  Deen Islam Miah and other 182 B-46  Abul Ehsan Md. Rahmatullalh

and other   252 B-47  Mrs Gulshan Ara Begum  252 B-48  Kazi Abdul Mannan   252 B-49  Md. Abdur Rashid  252  B-50  Mr. Raghunath Roy     252 B-51  Mrs. Bilkis Begum   252  B-52  Engr. Israil Bhuyan Minu   252 B-53  Mohammad Ullah  252 B-54  Hafij Mowlana Mizanur Rahman 252 B-55   Mrs. Mahmuda Begum  252 B-56  Md. Ibrahim    228 B-57  Md. Ibrahim  228 B-58  Md. Harun-ur-Rashid  228 B·59  Md. Harun-ur-Rashid  228  B-60  Monir Hossain   228  B-61  Mrs. Bilkis Begum   228  B-62  Md. Rafiqul lslam   228 B-63  K A B M Ruhullah  76 B-63A  Md. Abul Kashem  70 B-64  Kazi Abul Bashar Md.Ruhullah  220 


1,54,700.00 1,54,700.00 1,54,700.00

 2, 14,200.00   2, 14,200.00  2 ,14,200.00  2,14,200.00  2,14,200.00  2,14,200.00  2,14,200.00 2,14,200.00 2,14,200.00 2,14,200.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,93,800.00

 l,93,800.00   64,600.00   59,500.00  1,93,800.00


1

B-65  Md. Abdur Rashid  228 B-66  Md. Ali Asgar  228 B-67  Mrs. Suraya Sultana  228 B-68   Gazi Md. Anisul Huq & other  228 B-69  Md. Rafiqul Islam Bhuyan 228 B-70  Md Rafiqul Islam Bhuyan  223.25 B-71  Hazi Md. Abdus Samad 132 B-72  K.M.Akhteruzzaman   168 B-73   M.Akhteruzzaman 168 B-74    Mrs. Shamsunnahar Begum 168 B-75  Md. Abul Pasha & other  168 B-76  Md Sharif Ullah  III   B-77  Md. Shamsuddin  121.5


l,93,800.00 l,93,800.00 l,93,800.00 l,93,800.00 1,93,800.00 1,89,762.50 1,12,200.00 1 ,42,800.00 1 ,42,800.00  1,42,800.00 1,42,800.00  94,350.00 1,03,275.00


1

B-78  Md. Nazim Uddin   112   95,200.00 B-79  Md. Razaul Karim

Bubul @ other  126.75 1,07,737.50 B-80  Ali Ahmed Talukder  126   1,07,100.00 B-81  Md. Rafiqul Islam  125.25 1,064,625.00 B-82  Sher Mohammad   168  1,42,800.00 B-84  Md. Hasan Azad   448  3,80,800.00 B-85  Md. Abdul Moyez Beg 160  1,36,000.00 B-86  Md. Abdul Moyez Beg  91.25  77,562.50 B-1/ A Md. Anisur Rahman  140   1,19,000.00

B-2/A  Md. Yunus Ali  60    51,000.00 B-3/A  Md. Abdul Gani Patwary 40    34,000.00 B-4/A  Md. Majibur Rahman & other 98       83,300.00 B-1/D  Ali Ahmed Bhuyan & other  120  1,02,000.00 B-1/E  Md. Habibur Rahman Bhuyan  72    61,200.00 B-1/F Moidul lslam Mukul   62    52,700.00

Total 18679

Ground Floor: 93

First Floor

B-95 Mrs. Parvin Akhter  242  6,05,000.00 B-96 Mr. Raghunath Roy  243.75  ”

B-97  Mahmuda Siddika Smriti  157  ”

B-98  Md. Abdul Kader  181.50  ”

B-99  Mahmud Hossain 189  ” B-101  Md. Khairul Alam Sheikh 189  ” B-102  Md. Wahiduzzaman Miah  181.50  ” B-103 Md. Abdul Khaleque 189  ” B-104 Md. Haris Miah 189  ” B-105  Abul Ehsan Md. Shamsul Arefin 186  ” B-106  Md. Mokbul Ahmed Motin 189  ”

B-107 Md. Afaj Uddin 187.5  ” B-108  Bangladesh Small Ind. & Commerce 189  ” B-109 Md. Rafiqul Islam  186.5  ” B-110  Bangladesh Small Ind. & Commerce 189  ” B-111 Mr. Simon Gomes  192.5  ” B-112  Md. Sakhawat Hossain Chanchal  226  ” B-112/1 Md. Sakhawat Hossain Chancnal   226  ” B-112/2 Kazi Shafiqul Islam  226  ” B-112/3 Md. Abul Hossain & others  116  ” B-114  Md. Zakir Hossain  205  ” B-115  Md. Mizanur Rahman Helal 217       ” B-116  Md. Ashraf Uddin   216  ” B-117  Kazi Meherunnesa Minu  208  ” B-118  M. A. Awal   160  ” B-119  Md. Kamal Hossain & other  162  ” B-120/A  Khandker Arifuzzaman 165  ” B-121 K.A.B.M Ruhullah  165  ” B-122  Khandker Arifuzzaman 165  ” B-123 Nazim Uddin Molla 165  ” B-124 Md. Nazim Uddin Molla  333  ”

B-125  Md. Nuruzzarnan   204  ” B-126  Alha] Md. Abul Hashem  320  ” B-127  Md. Abul Hossain   216  ” B-128 Md. Abul Hossain   204  ” B-128/A Shakh Mahmud Hossain   114  ” B-131  Md. Arif Hossain Chowdhury  91  ” B-131/A Md. Habibur Rahman    208  ” B-132  Gazi Md. Jahangir Alam    222  ” B-133  Shahida Rashid Khanam  220  ” B-200  Majibur Rahman   115  ” B-201  Kamrul Ashraf Khan    222  ” B-202  Karnrul Ashraf Khan    222  ” B-203  Karnrul Ashraf Khan    222  ” B-266  Kamrul Ashraf Khan 140  ” B-267  Karmrul Ashraf Khan     140  ” B-268  Kamrul Ashraf Khan    140  ” B-169 Md. Abdur Rashid  216  ” B-270  Md. Abdur Rashid   2l6  ” B-200/A Md. Arifur Rahman  24  ” B-200/1 Benjir Ahmed  120  ”

B-200/2 Benjir Ahmed  100  ” B-200/3 Benjir Ahmed  100  ” B-200/4 Mr. Radheshyam Ghose Raju 177  ” B-200/5 Abu Fattah Hossain   85  ” B-200/6 Md. Shafiqur Rahman Munshi  185  ” B-200/7 Md. Munsur Ali   105  ” B-200/8 Masum Akhter Khan  112  ” B-200/9 Masum Akhter Khan  112  ” B-200/10 Md. Rakimul Mamun   107  ” B-200/11 Md. Kamal Uddin   100  ” B-200/12 Md. Abdul Mannan  104  ” B-200/13 Mrs. Rokeya Kabir  112.   ” B-200/14 Md. Delwar Hossain   103  ” B-200/15 Iqbal Hossain  118  ” B-200/16 Md. Abdul Majid   130  ” B-200/17 Md. Monir Hossain Selim  123  ” B-200/17A Md. Selim   125  ” B-200/18 Hazi Ataur Rahman  111  ” B-200/19 Mahmud Al Shafi   105  ” B-200/20B Afrina Sharmin   105  ” B-200/22 Mahbub Elahi Hirak Chowdhury 174  ” B-200/22A Mrs Halima Akter 106  ” B-200/23 Md. Imtiaj Alam Hamim 182  ” B-200/24 Mrs. Halima Akhter  106  ” B-200/25 Md. Akkas Ali      120  ” B-200/26 Md. Abdul Majid   120  ” B-200/27 Md. Belal Hossain  123  ” B-200/28 Mrs. Fatema Khatun  120  ” B-200/29 Mrs, Iyrin Parvin  120  ” B-200/30 Most Arfatun Noor   120  ” B-200/31 Farjana Rashid Tania 117   ” B-200/32 Tahmina Alam.  237  ” B-200/33 Tanvir Ahmed & other 1l7  ” B-200/34 Md. Kutub Uddin   55  ” B-200/35 Md. Isahaq Master  55  ” B-200/36 Mrs. Shamsunnahar  117  ” B-200/37 Tahmina Alam  18  ” B-200/38 Md. Monir Ahmed   120  ” B-200/39 Most. Mamamtajun Noor 120  ” B-200/40 Md. Tofazzal Hossain 120  ”

B-200/41 Md. Bela1   120  ” B-200/42 A.K.M Ansarul Alarn Lincon 110  ” B-200/43 A.K.M. Ansarul Alam Lincon 110  ” B-200/44 Mrs. Sabera Hossain  120  ” B-200/45 Md. Mizanur Rahman Majumder 120  ” B-200/46 Md Farid Hossain  120  ” B-200/47 Md. Nur Nabi & other 117  ” B-200/48 Md. Abdul Wadud Bepari 118  ” B-200/49 Mrs. Shahwari lmam  120  ” B-200/50 Hamidul Haque Nayan 120  ” B-200/51 Asha Khaled   120  ” B-200/52 Dewan Abdul Aziz 120  ” B-200/53 Md. Kamrul Ashraf Khan 171  ” B-200/54 Md. Kamrul Ashraf Khan 121   ” B-200/55 Major Anwarul Islam & other 55  ” B-200/56 Md. Kamrul Ashraf Khan 121  ” B-200/57 Dewan Abdul Aziz  120  ” B-200/58 Md. Mostafa Kamal & ors. 120  ” B~200/59 Md. Mohsin & other  120  ” B-200/60 Md. Badrul Islam  123  ” B-200/61' Md. Badrul Islam  123  ” B-200/62 Md. Nur Nabi  117  ” B-200/63' Md Khalukuzzaman  118  ” B-200/64 Hazi Md. Ramij Uddin Ahmed 120  ” First Floor: 115   17078.75

Second Floor Space  Payment period 1998

Floor Sqf. 2,000/- Prise

Md. Ibrahim Khokon  1000    20,00,000 B-130 Mrs. Dipali Ghose   468  9,36,000/- B-130/1, Md Alamgir    232  ” B-130/2 Md. Alamgir   232  ” B-134 Md. Mokbul Hossain Kazi 216  ” B-135 Mrs. Bilkis Yasmin   162  ” B-136 Mrs. Hasnatun Noor    224  ” B-137 Mrs. Bilkis Yasmin   162  ” B-138 Mrs. Rahatun Noor   222  ” B-139 Md. Sayeed Hasan Kanan 139  ” B-140 Sukanta Roy  159  ” B-141 Shamim Ahsan & other   164  ” B-142 Md. Alamgir  163  ” B-143 Md. Tofazzal Hossain  143  ”

B-144 Gulshan Ara Akhi & other 164  ” B-145 Md. Saiful Islam  157  ” B-146 Md. Shahidul Islam  166  ” B-147 Md. Saiful Islam  157  ” B-148 Akram Hossain  ” B-149 Md. Rafiqul Islam 153  ” B-150  Md. Mosaddok Ali   145  ” B-151  Md. Jalal Ahmed   149  ” B-152  Mrs. Hazra Nasir   149  ” B-153  Md. A Wadud   149  ” B-154 Ahammad Ullah  150  ” 8-156  Md. Shariful Huda  236  ” B-157  Md. Firoj Miah   240  ” B-158  Mrs Tahmina Sikder   236  ” B-159  Sayed A.F.M Hamidul Haq  250  ” B-160  Md. Nurul Alam   178  ” B-161  Md. Mokbul Hossain   174  ” B-162  Mrs. Khadija Begum Munni  171  ” B-163  Mizanur Rahman Helal  334  ” B-164  Khandker Rokshana Akter  173  ”

B-165  Md. Najir Ahmed Bhuyan   176  ” B-166  Khandker Rokhsana Akhter  173  ” B-166/A Md. Najir Ahmed Bhuyan  571  ” B-167  Khandker Rokhsana Akhter  173  ” B-168 Md.Abdus Salam Ali  222  ” B-169 Md.Abdus Salam Ali  272  ” B-170  Md. Rashedul Islam  237  ” B-220  Md.Selim Reza  180  ” B-226  Md.Selim Reza  180  ” B-277  DelwaraJahan Chowdhury   l79  ” B-228  Mrs. Hamida Khatun  111  ” B-229  Md. Anwar Hossain   165  ” B-230  Ahammad Ullah     194  ” B-231  Sayed A.F.M Hamidul Haq  122  ” B-232  Shamima Ahmed Sweety   170  ” B-233  Mr. Ajit Serao   193  ” B-234  Mrs. Farida Yasmin  177  ” B-235  Delwara Jahan Chowdhury 175  ” B-236  Md. Firoj Miah   195  ” B-237   H.S Monul Islam  189  ”

B-238  Mrs. Latifa Tahera  181  ” B-239  Mrs. Latifa Tahera   181  ” B-240  Mrs. Latifa Tahera  181  ” B-241 Md.Mohsin Hossain  187  ” B-276/A Md. Deen Islam   216  ” B-277  Md. Delwar Hossain Bhuyan 181  ” B-280  Md. Khajo Ahmed   186  ” B-281  Md. Habib Ullah   186  ” B-282  Md. Jahirul Islam & other   186  ” B-283  B.M Shahadat Hossain   186  ” B-284  Mr. Clement Gomes   186  ” B-300/1 Mrs. Nurunnahar   228  ” B-300/2 Mrs. Shahwari Imam  167  ” B-300/3 Babu Dhiren Ch.Sheel & other  215  ” B-300/4 Md. Hasmat Zaman Talukder  120  ” B-300/5 Md. Kamruzzaman     210  ” B-300/6 Ahammad Ullah     120  ” B-300/7 Md. Nazrul Islam Kabir  82  ” B-300/7A Kabir Bhuyan Kenedy 128  ” B-300/8 Abdullah Al Kamal Lala  120  ”

B-300/10 Habibur Rahman Sachcha 120  ” B-300/11 Mrs. Sufia Rahman   120  ” B-300/12 Mrs Shamim Ara Begum 70  ” B-300/13 Khandaker Najiba Khanam  120  ” B-300/14 Alhaj Abul Bashar  215  ” B-300/15 Md. Belal Hossain  120  ” B-300/16 Md. Saiful Islam  215  ” B-300/17 Md. Uakil Uddin   118  ” B-300/18 Kazi Shahid Uddin 167  ” B-300/18A Md. Rafiqul lslam  75  ” B-300/18B Babu Shyamal Ch Shreel  45  ” B-300/18C Md. Abdul Halim Miazi 77   ” B-300/19 Mrs. Rawsahan Ara Begum  113  ” B-300/20 Khandker Fazle Elahi Abdullah  120  ” B-300/21 Md. Moniruzzaman Bablu 118  ” B-300/22 Mr. Alfred Rozario 119  ” B-300/23 Safar Uddin Molla   118   ” B-300/24 Sakhina Begum  113  ” B-300/26A Sakhina Begum   113  ” B-300/27A Sakhina Begum   113  ”


B-300-26 Md. Wali Ullah B-300/27 Mr. Shafiqul Mowla B-300/28 Most. Parvin Akhter B-300/30 Md. Mamunur Rashid  B-300/31 Md. Delwar Hossain Bhuiyan Second Floor: 98          Third Floor 


119  ”

119   ”

119  ”

120  ”

224  ” 17594 

Payment Period 1998

Floor Sqf 1,700/- Price


1

B-130/3  B-130/4 B-130/5  B-130/6  B-130/7  B-129/8  B-171  B-172  B-173  B-174  B-175  B-176  B-177 


Md. Alarngir   234  ” Gul(s) DCC P.M. 234  ” Md. Farid Uddin 234  ” Mrs.Parvin Akhter 234  ” Md. Harun-ur-Rashid 234  ” Md. Shahidullah Bhuyan 842.5  ” Md Kamal Uddin  187  ” Md. Monir Hossain Selim 177.5  ” Md. Aminul Haque  187  ” Md. Billal Hossain 177.5  ” Mrs. Rawshan Ara Monju 187  ” Md. Rafiq Dewan  177.5  ” Mrs. Farida Mannan 225  ”


1

B-178  B-179  B-180  B-181  B-182  B-183 B-185  B-185/A B-210  B-211   B-212  B-213  B-214  B-215   B-216  B-217  B-218  B-219  B-220 

B-221 


Md. Abdus Sarnad & other 213  ” Md. Morshed Alam 178  ” Md. Morshed Alam 178  ” Md. Billal Hossain 173  ” Md. Morshed Alarn 183  ” Md. Oillal Hossain 17.1 ” Md. Monir Hossain 300  ” Md. Monir Hossain 140  ” S.M.Kawsar   243  ” S.M.Kawsar   243  ” S.M.Kawsar Ahmed 243  ” S.M.Kawsar Ahmed 243  ” Md.Delwar Hossain Bhuyan 336  ” Md.Delwar Hossain Bhuyan 336  ” Kazi Raisuddin Rumi 272  ” Kazi Raisuddin Rumi 272  ” Kazi Raisuddin Rumi 272  ” Kazi Raisuddin Rumi 272  ”

Bangladesh Furniture

Ind. Owners Asso.  315  ” Bangladesh Furniture  ”

Ind. Owners Asso.  315


1

B-222  Bangladesh Furniture

Ind. Owners Asso.  315  ” B-223   Bangladesh Furniture

Ind. Owners Asso.  315  ” B-224  Bangladesh Furniture

Ind. Owners Asso.  315  ” B-242 Mrs. Jesmin Ara   188  ” B-243 Mrs..Tahera  182  ” B-244  Sayed A.F.M.Hamidul Haq 196  ” B-245  Mrs. Farida Khatun   220  ” B-246  Sayed A.F.M Hamidul Haq  196  ” B-247  Md. Helal Hossain  184  ” B-249  Md. Anwar Hossian  180  ” B-250  Md. Bahar Uddin    180  ” B-251  Sayed A.F.M Hamidul Haq   193  ”  B-252  Md. Nasirul Haque    173  ” B-253  Md. Nasirul Haque    173  ” B-254  Sayed A.F.M Harnidul Haq   170  ” B-255  Sayed A.F.M Hamidul Haq   170  ” B-256  Rubayat-e-Ferdousi    187  ” B-257  Rubayat-e-Ferdousi   187  ” B-258   Mrs. Hamida Khatun   167  ”


1

B-259 , Mrs. Harmda Khatun  B-260  Naznin Siddiq Shobha  B-261  Naznin Siddiq Shobha  B-263  Md. Hasan Azad    B-264 Md. Hasan Azad    B-265  Md. Hasan Azad    B-271  Md. Anisur Rahman  B-272  Md. Anisur Rahman  B-273  Md. Anisur Rahman  B-274  Md. Ali Ahmed     B-278  Md. Abdul Jobber  B-400/1 Md. Anisur Rahman  B-400/2 Md. Anisur Rahman  B-400/3 Md. Anisur Rahman  B-400/4 Md. Faridul Alam  B-400/5 Md. Anisur Rahman B-400/6 Kazi Mojibur Rahman B-400/7 Md. Harun

B-400/8 Engr. F. R. Siddique  B-400/9 Md Yasin Miah


167  ” 168   ” 168  ” 160  ” 160  ” 160  ” 155  ” 155  ” 155  ” 200  ” 463  ” 115  ” 155  ” 120  ” 120  ” 120  ” 120  ” 110  ” 110  ” 45  ”


1

B-400/10 Md. Abu Taher        B-400/11 Md. Shahjahan Talukder  B-400/12 Mrs. Nurunnahar    B-400/13 Mrs. Hasina Begum   B-400/14 Md. Yasin Miah B-400/15 Mrs. Marjana Begum B-400/16 Md. Yusuf Bepri    B-400/17 Md Abdul Jabbar Jony B-400/18 A.M.Mohiuddin Ahmed B-400/19 A.M.Mohiuddin Ahmed B-400/20 Md. Abdul Gofur Patwary B-400/21  Md. Abdul Gofur Patwary B-400/22  Md. Anwar Hossain Khoka B-400/23  Md. Anwar Hossain Khoka B-400/24  Md. Akhter Hossain  B-400/25  Md. Akhter Hossain  B-400/26  Md. Belal Hossain  8-400/27  S. M. Yunus Ali B-'100/28 Hazi Sayed Mirja  B-400/29  Md. Tajul Islam


110  ” 118  ” 120  ” 120  ” 45  ” 120  ” 110  ” 110  ” 108  ” 108  ” 105  ” 105  ” 108  ”

108  ” 108  ” 120  ” 170  ” 118  ” 120  ”


1

B-400/30  Afroja Sultana  120  ” B-400/31  Chanchal Ahmed  120  ” B-400/32  Chanchal Ahmed   84  ” B-400/33.  Md. Saiful Islam   120  ” B-400/34  Farjana Afroj Rita  120  ” B-400/35  Md. Abul Bashar   120  ” B-400/36  Shaikh Tipu Sultan  120  ” B-400/37  Fakhrul Haque Kajal 120  ” B-400/38  Md. Shafiqur Rahman 120  ” B-400/39  Golam Kamrul Alam  120  ” B-400/40  Md. Saiful Islam  120  ” B-400/41  Chanchal Ahmed   60  ” B-400/42  Chanchal Ahmed   60  ” B-400/43  Alhaj Ali Akbar Babul 120  ” B-400/44  Md. Hedayet Hossain 120   ” B-400/45  Murad Ahmed  100  ” B-400/46  Md. Nur Islam  90  ” B-400/47  Md. Anisur Rahman  160  ” B-400/48  Md. Anisur Rahman  125  ” Third Floor:111    19551

Payment Period 1998 Fourth Floor  Floor Sqf 1,500/- Prise

B-129/C Md. Anisur Rahman 842.5 12,63,750/-  B-130/A Md. Shahabuddin Ahmed 105.3  ”

B-301 Md. Anwar Hossain Khoka  205   ”

B-302 Md. Akram Hossain    218   ”

B-328  Mrs. Maskura Begum Sarker  215  ”

B-329 Mrs. Nurunnahar   215  ” B-500/1 Md. Abdul Mannan   120     ” B-500/2 Md. Abdul Mannan   120  ” B-500/3 Mrs. Romena Mannan  164  ” B-500/4 Mrs. Romena Mannan  164  ” B-500/5 Md. Abdul Kader Khan 167  ” B-500/6 Md. Rafiqul Islam  120  ” B-500/7 Md. Abdul Kader Khan 167  ” B-500/8 Md. Shahabuddin Ahmed 120   ” B-500/9 Selim Mahmud   180   ” B-500/10 Md. Abu Taher  180  ” B-500/11 A.N.M. Jahangir Hossain Patwary 180  ” B-500/12 Md. Abu Taher  180  ” B-500/13 Md. Anwar Hossain  170  ”

B-500/15 Bangladesh Furniture

 Trading Corp  120  ” B-500/16 Alhaj Ali Ahmed   120   ” B-500/17 Mahbubur Rahman Selim 120   ” B-500/18 Mahbubur Rahman Selim 170  ” B-500/19 Asha Khaled   120   ” B-500/20 Mahbubur Rahman Selim 120   ”

B-500/21 Bangladesh Furniture

 Trading Corp.   120  ” B-500/22 "Sayeed Hasan Kanan 180  ” B-500/23 Sayeed Hasan Kanan  180  ” B-500/24 Alhaj Abul Bashar  120  ” B-500/25 Alhaj Abul Bashar  120  ” B-500/26 Alha] Abul Bashar  120  ” B-500/27 Alhaj Abul Bashar  120  ” B-500/28 Alhaj Abul Bashar  120  ” B-500/29 Md. Danesh Miah    418  ” B-500/30 Engr. Israil Bhuyan Minu 120   ” B-500/31 Kanij Rahima      160  ” B-500/32 Kanij Rahima      160   ” B-500/33 Kanij Rahima  160   ” B-500/34 Kanij Rahima  160  ” B-500/37 Mrs. Fatema Hossain   245  ” B-500/38 Md. Akhter Hossain  240  ” B-500/39 Md. Shafiqul Islam  225  ” B-500/40 Md. Shafiqul Islam  225   ” B-500/41 Md. Sirajul Islam  165  ” B-500/42 Md. Sirajul Islam  165  ” B-500/43 Lipi Islam   165   ” B-500/44 Lipi Islam   165   ” B-500/45 Lipi Islam   165   ” B-500/43 Lipi Islam   165   ” B-500/47 Sabbir Ahmed Osmani 225  ” B-500/48 Sabbir Ahmed Osmani 225  ” B-500/49 Sabbir Ahmed Osmani 225  ” B-500/50 Sabbir Ahmed Osmani 225  ” Fourth Floor: 53   9441.5

CHALACHITRA PRATISTHAN LTD.  

SHOP LIST

Ground Floor  Payment Period 1977

Floor Sqf 850/- Price

Shop No Name of Tenant  Area (Sft)

  1. Mohammad Hanif  216   1,83,600.00

1

  1. Md. Lokman Hossain  204 
  2. Md. Abul Pasha  216 
  3. Md. Lokman Hossain  204 
  4. Shafrul Islam Chow: & other  216
  5. Md. Sher Ali Miah  204 
  6. Md. Abul Hossain & other 216 
  7. Md. Sirajul Islam Majumder 204 
  8. Mrs. Tahmina Habib  216 
  9. Md. Israfil Shaikh  204
  10. K.A.B.M. Ruhullah  216 
  11. K.A.B.M. Ruhullah  204 
  12. Md. Ruhul Amin 216
  13. Mrs. Rawshan Ara Begum  204 
  14. Mr. Saimon Gomes  216 
  15. Md. Abdu1 Hakim Bhutan 68  16/A Md.Naimuddin Akhand  56
  16. Mr. Saimon Gomes  216
  17. Mr. Saimon Gomes  204
  18. Met Abul Fazal 216
  19. Md. Abdul Aziz 204


1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 l,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 57,800.00

1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00

  1. Hazi Ehsan Ali  216
  2. Md. Shahidur Rahman Sarker  204 23 Md. Golam Shafi  216 24 Md. Abdul Hakin Bhuyan   204
  1. Mrs. Johra Begum  204
  2. Md. Anwar Hossain  216
  3. Md. Abdus Sattar  204
  4. Md. Abdus Sattar  216
  5. Habibur Rahman Sarker & other 204
  6. Mrs. Saleha Khatun  216
  7. Md. Habibur Rahman  204
  8. Habibur Rahman Sarker & other 216
  9. Md. Habibur Rahman Sarker 204
  10. Md. Abdul Malek   216
  11. M. Golam Siddiqi  178
  12. Md. Motaleb   216
  13. Md. Abdul Halim   66  37/A Md_ Ohid Ali  37.5
  14. Md. Mofijuddin & other  216
  15. Md. Nurul Amin & other  204

1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,000.00 1,73,400.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,51,300.00 1,83,600.00

”

” 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00


  1. Md. Minhaj Uddin  216
  2. Mrs. Fatema Begum  204
  3. Moksudul Haque Chowdhury  216
  4. Md_ SayedulHaque  204
  5. Md. Abdur Rashid Majumder 216
  6. Md. Abdus Sattar  204
  7. Md. Yunus Ali  216
  8. Md. Mokbul Ahmed  187
  9. Md.Anwar Hossain Chowdhury  216 9856.5

1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,73,400.00 1,83,600.00 1,58,950.00 1,83,600.00


1

Payment period 1977 Floor Sqf 600/- price

First Floor

  1. Mrs. Lutfunnesa  204  ”
  2. Mrs. Lutfunnesa  216  ”
  3. Dr. Abdullah-al-Masum  216  ”
  4. Mrs. Lima Akhter  204  ”
  5. Mahmud Hossain  216  ”
  6. Md. Kamal Uddin  216  ”
  7. Md. Shamsuzzoha  204  ”
  8. Md. Nazrullslam  204  ”
  1. Mrs. Jyotsna Begum  216  ”
  2. Sri Dhiren Chandra Sheel & other  204  ”
  3. Md. Abul Hashem Bepari  216  ”
  4. Md. Harun-ur-Rashid Bepari & other  204  ”
  5. K.A.B_M. Ruhullah  216  ”
  6. Mrs. Sayeda Parvin  204  ”
  7. Mrs. Hazera Begum  216  ”
  1. Dr. Md. Emran Hossain  216  ”
  2. Kafil Uddin Ahmed  204  ”
  3. Mrs. Sakhina Begum  204  ”
  4. Md. Farid Hossain  204  ”
  5. Mrs. Hasna Begum  204  ”
  6. Mahmud Hossain  204  ”
  7. Md. Sharif Hossain & other 216  ”
  8. Md. Rafiqul Islam   204  ”
  1. Md. Shahabuddin Russel  216  ”
  2. Md. Abdul Khaleque  204  ”
  3. Mrs. Lima Akhter  216  ”
  4. Akram Uddin Ahmed  204  ”
  5. Gulshan 1 DIT Market Kachabazar B  216  ”
  1. Md. Majibur Rahman & other 204  ”
  2. Deen Islam Miah  216  ”
  3. Sri Swapan Roy  204  ”
  4. Md. Abdus Sattar  216  ”
  5. Md. Nazim Uddin  204  ”
  6. Mohiuddin Ahmed  216  ”
  1. Dr. Abu/ Bashar Sarker  216  ”
  2. Mrs. Hosne Ara Rahman  204  ”
  3. Shaikh Badar Uddin  216  ”
  4. Md. Farid Hossain  204  ”
  5. Md. Farid Hossain  216  ”
  6. Md. Nurul Islam & other  204  ”
  7. Mr. Saimon Gomes  216  ”
  8. Md. Anisur Rahman  210  ”
  9. Md. Anisur Rahman  210  ”
  1. Md. Abdul Motaleb  360  ”   9408

payment period 1977 Floor Sqf 450/- price

Second Floor

  1. Mr. Timothi Arther Faircross  420  ”
  1. Mr. Timothi Arther Faircross  420  ”
  2. Mr. Timothi Arther Faircross  420  ” 100. Mr. Timothi Arther Faircross  420  ” 101. S. M. Faisal Chisty  210  ” 102. S. M. Faisal Chisty  210  ” 103. S. M. Faisal Chisty  210  ” 104. S. M. Faisal Chisty  210  ” 105. Gulshan Shopping Banik K.Samiti  216  ” 106. Abul Bashar Md. Runullah 204  ” 107. Mrl Ataur Rahman  216  ” 108. Md. Farhan Mamun  204  ” 109. Md. Yasin Ali    216  ” 110. Md. Nurul lslarn  204  ” 111. Md. Anisuzzaman   165  ” 112. Md. Anisuzzaman   165  ” 115. Mrs. Azmal Khatun  216  ” 116. Md. Iqbal Hossain  204  ” 117. Alhaj Abdul Mannan   216  ” 118. Md. Iqbal Hossain  204  ” 119. Dewan Abdul Karim 216  ” 120. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   222  ” 121. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   222  ” 122. Mrs. Jah: nara Begum 222  ” 123. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   222  ” 124. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   222  ” 125. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   222  ” 126. Mrs. Jahanara Begum    222  ” 127. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   152  ” 128. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   152  ” 129. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   152  ” 130. Mrs. Jahanara Begum   152  ” 131. Md. Enamul rtaque Munju & other 204   ” 132. Mrs. Shirina Begum   262   ” 133. Mrs. Shirina Begum   262  ” 134. Elias Sarker & other  262  ” 135. Elias Sarker & other  262  ” 136. Mrs. Nurjahan   204  ” 137. Delwar Hossain Dulal  460  ” 138. Alhaj Sikder Abdul Latif 48.14 ” 139. Alhaj Sikder Abdul Latif 48.14   ”

     10824.78

Third Floor  Payment period 1998

Floor Sqf 1700/- price

148. Md. Sharif Ullah  216   ” 150. Md. Ekram Hossin  216  ” 151. Md. Abdul Momen Patwary 204  ” 152. Md. Anwar Hossain 216  ” 153. Mrs. Parvin Sultana  204  ” 154. Mr. Hasan Rashid Rocky 210  ” 155. Mr. Hasan Rashid Rocky 210  ” 156. Mr. Hossain Rashid Rakib 210  ” 157. Mr. Hossain Rashid Rakib 210  ” 158. S. M. Mozammel Haque  210  ” 159. S. M. Mozammel Haque  210  ” 160. Md. Abul Hossain  220  ” 161. Md. Abdul Kader  208  ” 162. Mrs. Manwara Begum  216  ” 163. Md. Saiful Islam  208  ” 164. Mrs. Manwara Begum  216  ” 165. Md. Saiful Islam  208  ” 166. Md. Kamrul Hasan Jatan  216   ” 167. Shafiqur Rahman Munshi  212   ” 168. Shafiqur Rahman Munshi  212   ” 169. Md. Nabiar Hossain  216   ” 170. Md. Golarn Mostafa  220   ” 171. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  198  ” 172. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  198   ” 173. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  198   ” 174. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  216   ” 175. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  247  ” 176. Mrs. Shamsunnahar Emili  247   ” 177. Elias Ahmed  216   ” 178. Elias Ahmed  216   ”

179. Gulshan(S) DCC Paka Market Samiti 216   ” 180. Gulshan(S) DCC Paka Market Samiti 216   ” 181. Md. Shafiqullslarn  ” 182. Md. Shafiqul Islam  432  ” 183. Mrs. Anjuman Ara Haque

184. Mrs. Anjuman Ara Haque  432   ” 185. Mrs. Suraya Kamal  214  ” 186. Md. Monir Hossain Selim  216   ” 187. Arju Mlah  214   ” 188. Shawkat Ali Bhuynn

B184. Shawkat Ali Bhuyan  395   ” 189. Mrs. Kamrunnahar  225  ” 190. Md. Farid Uddin  212   ” 191. Afrina Islam & other

192. M. A. Kader  450  ” 193. Afrina Islam & other  212   ”

10019

Fourth Floor  Payment period 1998

Floor Sqf 1500/- price

200. S. H. Chanchal Ahmed

201. S. H. Chanchal Ahmed  400  ”

202. Mafijuddin Bhuyan Fiaz

203. Mafijuddin Bhuyan Fiaz  420  ” 204. Kazi Mahmuda Delwar & other

205. Kazi Mahmuda Delwar & other   420  ” 206. Mrs. Anwara Begum  211  ” 207. Md. Afaj Uddin   223  ” 208. Md. Mahbubur Rahman  934  ” 209. Md. Z. I. Chowdhury  209  ” 210. Md. Rakib Hasan  223  ” 211. Md. Kamrul Hasan  ” 212. Md. Kamrul Hasan  ” 213. Md. Kamrul Hasan  645  ” 214. Md. Z. I. Chowdhury  ” 215. Md. Z. I. Chowdhury  434  ” 216. Sri Ratan Roy  223  ” 217. Sudipta Roy  223  ” 218. Md. Badrul Islam Chowdhury  211  ” 219. Mostafizur Rahman Nayeem  217  ” 220. Sumaya Islam & other  217  ” 212. Emdad Ahmed Alam  ”


222. Emdad Ahmed Alam 223. Mrs. Kariman Degum 224. Mrs. Kariman Begum 225. Md. Anwar Hossain 226. Sayed Morshedur Rahman 227. Naznin Akhter

228. Md. Monir Hossain


434  ” ”

434  ” 216  ” 219  ” 222  ” 210  ”


1

Space Md kamrul Ashraf Khan & Iftekhar Udd. 16850

(East Side)

Fifth Floor  Payment period 1998

Floor Sqf 1200/- Price

229. Md. Anisur Rahman

230. Md. Anisur Rahman  426  ” 231. Mrs. Rawshan Akhter

232. Mrs. Rawshan Akhter  426  ” 233. Doreya Hye   210  ” 234. Kanij Fatema  216  ” 235. Md. Jahirul Islam  ” 236. Mrs. Tapashi Paul  210  ” 237. Md. Jahirul Islam  636  ” 238. Mr.Jairul Islam

239. Md. Helal Uddin

240. Md. Helal Uddin  426  ”

241. Md. Tajul  Islam

242. Md. Tajul Islam  426  ”

243. Mrs. Khorsheda Begum  216  ”

244. S. M. Azizur Rahman

245. S. M. Azizur Rahman  426  ”

246. Md. Khalilur Rahman  216  ”

248. Md. Aminul Haque

249. Md. Aminul Haque  426  ”

250. Mrs. Koyeli  210  ”

251. Md. Alim Ullah   216  ”

252. Md. Abdus Sattar Mridha

253. Md. Abdus Saltar Mridha  426  ”

We noticed cropping up of various litigations over the eviction of the tenants and unauthorized extension  of  the  building  by  the  owners.  The landlords  are  now  using  the  unauthorised constructions  as  an  instrument  to  demolish  the building by evicting the tenants and the parties are at loggerheads over the said dispute for a long time. Now the question is (a) whether the tenants can be evicted for the purpose of rebuilding of the premises after demolition without reserving their rights who have paid handsome amount of money towards sale of possession at the time of taking lease; (b) whether the prevailing law permits such transaction of selling possession by the landlords at the time of leasing out the premises; and (c) whether the tenants have acquired any right in the premises to continue without any registered instruments in their favour. 

Admittedly the tenants purchased the possession of the shops from the landlords but the deeds were not registered. Lease within the meaning of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of immovable property is a ‘transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.’ On a plain reading of this definition it is clear that it is one of contract between the lessor and the lessee for the possession and profit of land on the one side and the recompense by rent or other consideration on the other. When such contract vests in the lessee a right of possession for a certain time, it operates as a conveyance or transfer, and is a lease. It may be said otherwise that it is a transfer of a right of enjoyment of immovable property for a certain period. The price mentioned in section 105 according to the Transfer of Property Act is taken as premium.

There is distinction between the words ‘premium’ and ‘rent’. If a payment is a consideration of being made for possession such as salami, it is a premium within the meaning of the law. This premium cannot be taken as advance of rent, advance of right. The Supreme Court of India in Board of Agriculture Income Tax V. Sindhurani, AIR 1957 SC 729 held that ‘salami’ is a payment by the tenant as a present or as price for parting by the landlord with his rights under the lease of a holding. It is a lump sum payment as consideration for what the landlord transfers to the tenant. Salami is not rent. The point in issue in that case was whether ‘salami’ falls within the meaning of ‘agricultural income’ for the purpose of assessment of tax.

The Supreme Court in a latter case in Commissioner of IT V. Panbari Tea Company, AIR 1965 SC 1871 taking the definition of lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act explained the distinction between ‘premium’ and ‘rent’ as under:

“The section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid periodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease are in the nature of rent. The former is a capital income and the latter a revenue receipt. There may be circumstances where the parties may camouflage the real nature of the transaction by using clever phraseology. In some cases, the so-called premium is in fact advance rent and in others rent is deferred price. It is not the form but the substance of the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but it helps the Court, having regard to the other circumstances, to ascertain the intention of the parties.”

The above views were taken in the context of assessment of tax upon an assessee for determination of the question as to whether the payment of ‘salami’ by a tenant is ‘income’ or ‘capital’ within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and in deciding the question the court had to consider the meaning of the word ‘lease’ within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. The above views clearly signify that when the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, it is a price paid as ‘premium’ and it cannot be taken as advance towards the payment of rent. The monthly payments are made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease and this payment is called rent. In case of payment of ‘premium’ it is a consideration paid by the tenant for being let into possession for the purpose of creating lease. If the landlord parted with an interest for a price the tenant’s status is upgraded.

Under the prevailing law any payment made by the lessee as part of the consideration of the lease is rent. Rent is a periodical payment. It is usually reserved for yearly, monthly, or quarterly and it becomes due at the end of each such period. The Transfer of Property Act does not define an agreement to lease, but section 2(7) of the Registration Act, 1908 defines ‘lease’ includes ‘a counterpart, kabuliyat and an undertaking to cultivate or occupy.’ It is an inclusive definition and used in generic term having many species in it. The legislature deliberately gives an inclusive definition. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property made in the manner specified in section 105. Section 17 of the Registration Act prescribes deed which are required to be registered compulsorily including those mentioned in clause (d) such as, ‘leases of immovable property from year to year, or for a term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent.’ So deeds mentioned in clause (d) of section 17 would cover cases of documents which do not involve a present or immediate transfer of lessee’s right.

Leases are instruments which transfer lessee’s right in the property immediately and in praesenti. In Bacon’s Abridgement, a lease is defined as ‘a contract between the lessor and the lessee for the possession and profits of land, etc., on the one side and recompense by rent or other consideration on the other.’ According to Investopedia, ‘A lease is a contract outlining the terms under which one party agrees to rent property owned by another party. It guarantees the lessee, the tenant, use of an asset and guarantees the lessor, the property owner or landlord, regular payments from the lessee for a specified number of months or years. Both the lessee and the lessor face consequences if they fail to uphold the terms of the contract.’

In Trivenibai V. Lilabai, AIR 1959 SC 620, the Supreme Court of India on considering section 2(7) of the Registration Act held that an agreement to lease must be a document which effects an actual demise and operates as a lease. An agreement between two parties which entitles one of them merely to claim the execution of a lease from the other without creating a present or immediate demise in his favour is not an agreement to lease within the meaning of section 2(7). This view has been approved in a latter case in VB Dharmyat V. Shree Jagadguru Tontadrya, (1999) 6 SCC 15. In Trivenibai, it was observed:

“In construing this document it is necessary to remember that it has been executed by laymen without legal assistance, and so it must be liberally construed without recourse to technical considerations. The heading of the document, though relevant, would not determine its character. It is true that an agreement would operate as a present demise although its terms may commence at a future date. Similarly it may amount to a present demise even though parties may contemplate to execute a more formal document in future. In considering the effect of the document we must enquire whether it contains unqualified and unconditional words of present demise and includes the essential terms of a lease. Generally if rent is made payable under an agreement from the date of its execution or other specified date, it may be said to create a present demise. Another relevant test is the intention to deliver possession. If possession is given under an agreement and other terms of tenancy have been set out, then the agreement can be taken to be an agreement to lease. As in the construction of an agreement to lease, regard must be had to all the relevant and material terms; and an attempt must be made to reconcile the relevant terms if possible and not to treat many of them as idle surplus age.”

Under the Registration Act, the transfer of possessory right is required to be registered. The question now falls for consider is whether the present tenants can be evicted in the similar manner as an ejectable tenant. There is no dispute that all the tenants paid almost at the market price of the space leased out to them. In some agreements the payment of money was mentioned and in respect of other tenants the landlords acknowledged the receipt of the money by executing hand notes. Facts remain that the landlords had acknowledged the receipt of money against the sale price of possession but the deeds were not registered. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act gives statutory recognition of the doctrine of part performance. To obviate the eventuality that a parole agreement relating to land has partly been performed by one party and yet by reason of some technical defect as want of the necessary registered document, such party cannot compel the other to perform his part of the contract. Where one party has performed his part of the agreement in the confidence that the other party would do the same, it would be a fraud upon the former to suffer the latter’s refusal to work to his prejudice. Section 53A also protects the interest of the transferee in possession which is used as a shield against transferor/owner. Even if a person purchases the property from the real owner, the purchaser would disentitle the person in possession on the basis of unregistered deed from disturbing his possession who is in possession pursuant to an agreement.

This court is of the view that there is no reason to negate the argument that this section will not be applicable to leases and agreement to lease. Similar principle is applicable to leases, where an agreement to lease is evidenced and the lessee is put in possession, there has been acceptance of salami and/or acknowledgment of receipt of money towards sale of possession, section 53A will be used as shield against the owner to oust the tenant. The lessee could defend the suit for ejectment. Reference in this connection is the case of Maniklal Mansukhbhai V. Hormusji Jamshedji (1950) SCR 75. It has been held in that case that in cases of lease the legislature has recognized that the equity of part performance is an active equity as in English law and is sufficient to support an independent action by the plaintiff.

Coupled with this provision, section 49 of the Registration Act which also protects the rights of the person in possession pursuant to an agreement. It enacts that a document which is required to be registered under section 17 can either create a right in immovable property or be received as evidence or such right. Apparently the documents of the tenants are hit by section 17. So the above provisions are applicable to the area we are dealing with. The documents of lease can be used for collateral purpose of possession to prove the existence of an agreement for sale of the property. The Registration Act, does not distinguish between tangible and intangible immovable property and makes registration optional in the case of all immovable property of value less than Tk.100/-. A sale of intangible immoveable property can only be made by a registered instrument, whatever the value of such property may be and a sale of tangible immovable property, though of a value less than Tk.100/- must also be effected by a registered instrument unless it is effected by delivery of possession.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines ‘sale’ which is a transfer of ownership in exchange of a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. Therefore, it is significant to note that section 54 comprehends the value of the property as distinguished from the purported consideration of alienation and even if the property worth more than Tk.100/- is transferred for a consideration of less than Tk.100/- it cannot be done without a registered document.

While under the Registration Act, a lease of immovable property other than a lease from year to year, or for a term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent need not be registered, yet the Transfer of property Act, such as a lease (section 107) may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by the delivery of possession. Similarly, while under the Registration Act a gift of movable property need not be registered, yet under the Transfer of Property Act, under section 123, such gift may either be made by a registered instrument, or by delivery. This inconsistency has been noticed by Garth, C.J. in Narain Chaunder V. Dataram Roy, (1882)8 cal 597.

So, we find that there can be one mode of transfer of immovable property (a) by registered instrument and (b) by delivery of possession, and a sale cannot be effected in any other way. The title of the land cannot pass by mere admission of the owner when the statute requires a registered deed of sale. An agreement for sale is not a document of transfer nor by reason of execution of power of attorney, the right, title or interest of immovable property can be transferred. The ownership of the property does not pass and/or transfer until registration of the deed is effected. The ownership under the sale deed passes on the date of execution of the sale deed irrespective of the date of registration by reason of section 47 of the Registration Act. Under the latter provision the title relates back to the date of execution for the purpose of priority once the registration is effected. So, a registered deed will not be defeated by another deed executed later but registered earlier.

Section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 prohibits acceptance of premium, salami or any money more than one month’s rent by the landlord. Similar provision is also provided in the Premises of Rent Control Act, 1991. It says:

“10 Premium, salami or fine not to be claimed, received or asked for or advance or more than one month’s rent not to be claimed or received- No person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any premises-

(a)      claim, receive or invite offers or ask for payment of any pre-mium, salami, fine or any other like sum in addition to the rent; or

(b)      except with the previous written consent of the Controller, claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month’s rent of such premises as rent in advance.”

There is an exception to the above provision and the landlord can receive premium or salami in addition to the rent in respect of a premises which are let out for a period not less than twenty years for the purpose of development/building/re-building, if the period is not expressed to be terminable by the landlord within ten years from the date of commencement of the tenancy. The present agreements of the tenants do no provide for a period not less than twenty years although the tenants are in possession over such period. Therefore there is no doubt that the landlords violated section 10.

Though there is strict restriction not to claim any premium, salami or rent more than one month in advance, it is a natural phenomenon prevailing in the country that the landlords are taking advance money from the tenants towards advance, salalmi or sale of possession without executing registered instruments. Even after taking huge amount of money equivalent to the sale price of the space, they let out the shops or spaces to other tenants after evicting the old tenants on the expiry of the specified period on taking more money in the similar manner. The poor tenants are handicapped in the hands of mighty landlords and surrender to the wishes of the landlords.

 In the case in hand the tenants made advance money not against adjustment of rent. They paid money towards the sale of possession of the premises. Clause (a) to section 10 specifically prohibits invitation of offer for the payment of such money in the form of premium, salami etc. This acceptance of sale price is not only void under section 23 of the Contract Act as its object was not lawful, it is also contrary to sections 10(b) and 11 of the Premises Rent Control Act. This premium or salami or sale price can be made with prior permission of the Rent Controller under section 10(b). It was held in Shamsuddin Ahmed V. Mohammad Hossain, 31 DLR(AD)155 that despite there is bar if the landlord realizes such money, the tenant will not get any benefit if he makes default in payment of rent in view of the fact that this agreement is unenforceable. There is no allegation that the tenants have defaulted in the payment of rent. In another case in Maherunnessa Khatun V. Abdul Latif, 38 DLR(AD)196, it has been observed that it merely prohibits the premium, salami in advance without the consent of the Controller and that the tenant in occupation is compelled to pay the arrears of municipal tax, which must be deducted from the payment due.  

In view of the above discussions, only a charge, premium, rent (32 DLR (AD) 170), which is valid can be received by the landlords under our law of the land under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. But any advance more than one month’s rent is not permissible. An agreement which varies the amount of rent or other essential terms of a lease amounts to a fresh lease and must be registered as such. (Durga Prosad Singh V. Rajendra Narain Singh, (1914) 40 I.A. 223 and Lalit Mohan V. Gopali, 12 I.C.723 (FB).

In Shamsuddin Ahmed (supra), the monthly tenancy was created in 1973 fixing monthly rent of Tk.600/- and advance of Tk.9200/- was paid which amount was adjustable in two years in monthly installment of Tk.800/-. The suit was filed on the seventh month of the execution of the agreement on the ground of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent in accordance with the contract. The trial court decreed the suit, the High Court Division affirmed the judgment. This court held that the agreement is hit by sections 10 and 23 of the Contract Act, inasmuch as, the object of the agreement in question was not lawful and that a part of the consideration of the transaction was also contravened section 10(b) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, inasmuch as, the object was to realize a sum of Tk.9200/- by way of advance which is prohibited by law. This court also held that in view of the payment of advance money the tenant was not a defaulter in paying the rent as long as the landlord had adjusted the amount towards the monthly rent. This court allowed the appeal.

In Maherunnessa Khatun V. Abdul Latif, 38 DLR (AD) 196, the suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default and also sub-letting the premises in violation of the agreement. The suit was decreed by the trial court and on revision the High Court Division reversed the judgment. In that case also the High Court Division observed that the agreement was void under section 23 of the Contract Act in view of the fact that as per agreement the tenant would have to pay municipal taxes including the arrear of municipal taxes, if any, which was prohibited by section 10 of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. This court held that the High Court Division misconstrued section 23 of the Contract Act, inasmuch as, the High Court Division made the above observations overlooking sections 9 and 13. It further held that section 9 has clearly made it a term of the tenancy thereby making it a

local consideration and section 10 prohibits the premium, salami etc. and acceptance of rent exceeding one month in advance. When section 9 expressly sanctions such consideration as implied prohibition cannot be read with into the words of section 10 to bring a consideration within the ambit of law. However, on the question of default and sub- letting unfortunately this court was totally silent and set aside the judgment of the High Court Division.

Under the old law as well as the new law, there is an exception to the above restrictions in section 11 of the premises Rent Control Act which is similar to the old Ordinance. It authorizes the landlord to receive premium or salami or other sum in addition to the rent in respect of the premises. This is an exception to section 10 of the Act and the landlord can take advance as premium or salami or other like sum in addition to the rent if a lease is executed for a long term and if the period limited by the lease is not expressed to be terminable at the option of the landlord at any time within a period of ten years from date of commencement for the period so limited. It is a privilege accorded to the landlord to facilitate construction of the building for the purpose of lease and this financial advantage cannot be equated with any other receipt of advance money from the tenant other than one month’s advance rent. However, we have noticed in a good number of cases that the landlords are claiming advance as security money from the tenants even in case of letting out premises for a limited period. This is totally unauthorised.

There is provision under section 14 for refund of rent, premium, salami not recoverable from the tenant if the landlord has illegally received from the tenant. There was corresponding provision in the Ordinance of 1963 also. It provides that if any amount as aforesaid is paid or deposited with the landlord in advance the tenant may recover such

amount through the Controller on his application to be made within six months from the date of such payment or deposit and the Rent Controller shall direct the refund of the said money or in the alternative, the Controller may direct for adjustment of the said amount towards the monthly rent at the option of the tenant. This provision is not applicable to the case of the tenants, inasmuch as, the landlords have not leased out the premises in accordance with section 11.

It is on record that the electricity has been disconnected from the premises for no fault of the tenants. Section 33 enjoins the tenants to have electricity connections without the permission of the landlord. The electricity disconnection was made in violation of section 33. Some of the tenants are in occupation for 39 years. In the facts of the given case it cannot be altogether denied that the tenants have acquired no rights to continue as tenants despite the fact that no registered deeds were executed in their favour, inasmuch as, the interest of the owners has been parted with to the tenants. They are also entitled to get electricity connection in the premises. Most of the tenants paid huge amount of money to the landlord. We noticed that one landlord had received Tk.28,00,000/- from a tenant for a space measuring 6,500 square feet on 10.08.1999. The landlords have also executed some lease deeds with some tenants under the heading “¸jkvb †d¬v‡ii jxR cwRkb wewµ Pzw³i `wjj”. In one document the landlord received Tk.83,00,000/- from two tenants for sale of possession of floor for 99 years. Besides, they have been realizing rent every month from the tenants and the rents have been increased from time to time as per agreements.

The documents clearly show that a substantial amount of money was received on the plea for selling the possession of the space for shop premises. The tenants have given the right of transfer of possession subject to payment of transfer fee. This sale of possession is hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, and section 23 of the Contract Act, but this does not mean that the tenants can be evicted treating them as ejectable tenant. They have acquired interests in the premises by reason of payment of money towards sale of possession and their interest is protected under section 53A.

The landlords made unauthorized constructions

on taking money from the tenants and the mobile court found the authorized constructions in the building and fined the landlord “evYx wPÎ cªwZôvb wjwg‡UW”. This was done without the knowledge of the tenants. The tenants claimed that the landlords with a view

to evicting them in connivance with the RAJUK arranged a surprise visit of the Executive Magistrate and disconnected the electricity with a view to compelling them to vacate the shop premises

so that the landlords can raise multi-storey building after the demolition of the present structures. There was no fault on the part of the tenants in respect of the unauthorized constructions and it was the landlords who made the unauthorized constructions for monetory gains and realized huge amount of money from the tenants. Due to disconnection of the electricity for the fault of the landlords the tenants have been suffering a lot in their businesses.

At any event it is an admitted fact that now the building is not under condition of occupation and there was unauthorized constructions as well. So the building is required to be demolished over which both the parties have agreed, but the landlords without arranging any alternative arrangement to the shop keepers wanted to evict them who have been running their businesses some of them since 1977, some of them since 1978 and some of them since 1998. They not only stopped in their illegal acts, they have also moved the High Court Division seeking a direction to implement the judgment in Writ Petition No.2321 of 2007, that is to say, to dismantle the structures. In the said judgment the High Court Division has not noticed the violation of law by the landlords in making the constructions and for their laches the tenants have been sustaining financial loss.

It is on record that the parties are at loggerheads over the possession and dispossession of the shop premises. If the tenants are evicted and the buildings are demolished, the landlords will be benefited immensely, inasmuch as, they would realize huge amount of money from the expected purchasers by selling shops and apartments since the plots in question are situated in a very posh area, but as a matter of fact, they have received the actual sale price of the land and building from the tenants at the time of leasing out the premises. Due to ignorance of law and/or ill advice, the tenants paid huge amount of money towards the price for selling possession without registered deeds which was totally prohibited by law.

Accordingly this court holds that no landlord or house owner can take any money on the plea of selling possession without executing any registered instrument from any person/tenant. This mode of such transaction is prohibited by law, but it is being practised by the landlords from time immemorial. But despite non-registration of the deeds, the tenants cannot be evicted as ejectable tenants as the landlords have parted with their interest. The manner of receipt of such money is tantamount to proportionate selling of the ownership of the land and building but without any legal basis. The tenants cannot be taken to be monthly ejectable tenants in the eye of law, inasmuch as, they have acquired an interest in their respective premises. The landlords are defrauding the tenants by resorting to illegal practices by receiving sale price of possession of the shops from the tenants without executing registered deeds. Landlords can recover possession from them on repayment of the advance money with compensation from the date of receipt of the money and the compensation can only be assessed by a court of law.

We want to make it clear that a tenant under such circumstances cannot be evicted from the premises as an ordinary ejectable tenant by the landlord. It is the landlords who have compelled tenant to make such payment. This Court record its dissatisfaction the manner in which the electricity of the premises has been disconnected without any intimation to the tenants. So we modify our earlier order and observed that the shop keepers are legally entitled to electricity connection. If the electricity is restored, they will pay the necessary fees and bills till they vacate the shop rooms. Shop keepers are earning their livelihood from their businesses and they have other dependents in their families. These persons cannot be thrown on the street in the manner the landlords contemplating to evict them by resorting to punitive measures by compelling them to vacate the premises. They can evict them subject to the payment of proper compensation, which will be equivalent to the present market price.

 Learned Counsel for the landlords realising the infraction of law by landlords volunteered that the landlords would provide shop rooms to the tenants after reconstruction if they pay the market price. By demolition of the construction, the tenants’ rights or interest whatever could not be impaired. It is contended by the learned counsel for the land owners that the landlords have undertaken construction of a multi-storey building keeping provisions for shops in some floors at the lower levels and apartments at the upper floors and as per prevailing law, in constructing such multi-storey building sufficient space have to be spared. Accordingly there would be shortage to space for accommodation of all the shop keepers in the new building. The submission of the learned counsel is partially correct, but at the same time, it should be kept in mind that whatever space the owners will sacrifice can be recovered by making more floors at the top. At present there is existence of five floors in the building, but the owners can raise at least twenty storey building and the space which they will sacrifice can be recovered. The owners will sacrifice some land for car parking and installation of lift.

 Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, this court hold the view that after the reconstruction of the building, these tenants shall be given shop rooms in the following manner. The shop keepers who possess less than 100 square feet space shall be given 5% less space and those who possess the above space shall be provided with less than 10% of the space in the same floors they are now possessing. If the ground floor is kept for car parking and office space for staff, they would be provided with shops in the first floor and the other shop keepers would be allotted in the similar manner on the upper floors. They will get priority in the process of allotment of space. Learned counsel for the owners submitted that if it is not possible on the part of the shop keepers to pay the market price, the owners would face various complications. As observed above, the shop keepers have already paid almost the market price of the space which they are  now  occupying.  Since  a  modern  multi-storey building would be constructed on the plots, we

1 th

direct the shop keepers to pay 4  of the standard market price to the landlords as may be paid by other desiring purchasers. The landlords are under obligation to execute and register the sale deeds in proportion to the space in favour of the tenants. In no case the land owners can demand more than the price fixed above. If there is any violation of the direction made by this court, the shop keepers have

the remedy before this court against the owners by making proper application for violation of the direction given by this court.

We further direct the owners of the plots to execute and register the sale deeds on receipt of the consideration amount from the shop keepers within 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of the amount. The owners cannot dispossess the tenants before approval of plan by the RAJUK for constructing the multi-storey building on the plots and till such date the shop keepers shall remain in possession of the shops. The construction must be completed within three years from the date of taking possession and in case of failure to handover possession within the above time, the landlords shall pay compensation to the tenants.

All the writ petitions relating to the disputed plots are disposed of in the light of the observations made above. All suits or other legal proceedings pending in respect of the property in any court between the parties shall stand deposed of and this judgment shall govern all those suits and proceedings.   

C.J.

J.

J.