Issue framed or decided on Merit

Since an issue was framed by the Court and judgment declared it ought to have decided the issue on merit and not dismissed it for non‑prosecution. The court could either frame the issue and decide it on merit or dismiss the application for non‑prosecution without deciding the issue.

In the instant case, the Court of Settlement dismissed the application for non-­prosecution and yet it decided the question in issue by holding that inclusion of plot No. 7 Lane No. 4 Block C, Section 10, Mirpur Housing Estate, Dhaka in the 'Ka' list of the abandoned properties published on September 23, 1986 in Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary as abandoned property was made as provision of President's Order 16 of 1972 read with Ordinance No.54 of 1985. So the Court dismissed the application for non‑prosecution, although it had framed an issue and decided the issue without going into merit. This, in our view, is illegal and in so deciding the Court of Settlement acted beyond lawful authority.

The judgment in affirming and maintaining inclusion of House No.10‑C, Lane 4/7 Mirpur Housing Estate, Dhaka in the Ka' list of abandoned properties published on September 23, 1986 in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary as abandoned property made as per provision of President's Order 16 of 1972 read with Ordinance No.54 of 1985 to be illegal and without lawful authority………. (8 & 9) 

A tenant is liable to be evict­ed if he is a defaulter in payment of rent, if the landlord needs the suit premises for bona fide requirement and if the tenant denies the title of the landlord.....(19)

In the instant case though the respondent continues his posses­sion by holding over, he is liable to be evicted as the appellant needs the suit premises for his bona fide requirement….....(21) 

Upon the satisfaction of the Court a private sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy the decreetal amount can be allowed to the Judgment debtor by the Court. A reasonable time for so doing only to be given.

In the instant case, the ends of justice would be best served if the petitioner has been given a chance to pursue his wish by which the decreetal amount may be paid of by private selling of the mortgaged property, and in all fairmess that should be allowed.

Time should be reasonable as it has been allowed in the above mentioned two decisions of this Division……….(9) 

Section 26 of the VAT Act contemplates a situation and made provisions for combating the same. Of course the provision should be followed meticulously in its true spirit and purport. If there occurs any deviation in terms of such on 26 of the Act then certainly that can be remedied in a proper forum as it has been done in the instant case by the respondent No.1 Appellate Tribunal.

Writ certiorari has its own limitation. While sitting in certiorari this Division would always be loath to interfere with a case as a Court of appeal. It is well settled which is no longer a resintegra……………………….. (11) 

Whether Tenant Can Restrain Landlord Permanently from Evicting by Challenging the Title- 

It is settled principle of law that tenant can file suit but that he can done after surrendering the suit premises to the plaintiff landlord. Moreover, at no point of time tenant has right to challenge the title of land­lord. In the instant case defendant being a defaulter cannot restrain the plaintiff landlord from evicting him from the suit premises permanently.....……………… (45) 

Agreement for lease is void under section 23 of the Contract Act when its object is not lawful and that it having not been registered is unenforce­able and also inadmissible in evidence.………(36)