(COURT Of APPEAL)*

SAYED SADIG OYA —. RAHMA EL TAHIR

(AC/REV/153/1975)

Revision:

Principles

·  Landlord and tenant. — Ejectment justified after demolition order-whether landlord has claim for storing tenantseffects .

A landlord, having been ordered to demolish leased premises Is entitled to eject the tenant after reasonable notice to quit, in order to commence demolition. But the landlord is not entitled to claim for reasonable storage of tenant’s effects left on the premises.

Judgment

The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgment of Soni, J.

Advocates : Fawzi el Tom…………… for Applicant

Mirghani el Nasri…………………….. for Respondent.

R.C. Soni, J: This case began as a claim by the Plaintiff tenant against his landlord alleging that the landlord had committed trespass on the premises let and had wrongfully ejected the Plaintiff tenant, and claiming repossession of the premises or in the alternative damages for the trespass, which were assessed at L.S. 70 by the Plaintiff. The landlord replied that the tenant had been guilty of misuse of the premises in that he had damaged the walls by improperly letting water out, that the Municipality had notified the landlord that the walls must be demolished, that he (the landlord) had apprised the tenant of this, that the tenant prevaricated, that before the landlord actually took action in demolishing the walls he had asked the tenant to vacate, and when he (the landlord) found the tenant obdurate the demolition was taken in hand by the landlord’s son going into the premises and demolishing the walls. The landlord also submitted that the tenant had been in arrears with the rent. The landlord counterclaimed for. the damages caused to the premises by the tenant’s misuse, and also claimed a sum for storing and looking after the tenant’s belongings after the tenant had gone away; the total sum claimed for these two items being L.S.7o.

(‘) Court: M.A. Abu Rannat, C.J.; R.C. Soni. J.

The trial Court found that the landlord had demolished he walls, and this was a case of actionable trespass. It dismissed the case for repossession. It found that the tenant had been in arrears of rent for the month of February, the demolition had taken place early in March. The Court found that damages for trespass should be a sum of L.S.7o. The Court also found that the tenant was not responsible for the damage to the walls, but that he was liable to pay for the storage of his possessions. The Court awarded the landlord a sum of L.S.2o for this. In the  result, the tenant’s suit for possession of the premises was dismissed, but there was a decree in the tenant’s favour for a sum of L.S. being the difference between L.S. and L awarded to either side. No reasons were given why there sums had been awarded.

From this decree there were cross-appeals by both sides. The learned Province Judge who heard them came to the conclusion that the tenant was responsible for his own troubles. He was given ample notice to vacate as the premises were in a dangerous condition and the landlord was acting in compliance with the Municipality’s demands. He found no case made out for any special damages for trespass. After going through the evidence the learned Province Judge found that the tenant was in arrears of rent and therefore no order for possession of the premises could be given. The learned Province Judge also found that there was no ground for awarding the sum of L . S. 20 to the landlord for storage of the tenant’s belongings, as the place of storage was a room in the very house which was being reconstructed, and no special reason existed for awarding the sum of L.S.20. In the result the learned Province Judge dismissed both the suit of the tenant and the counterclaim of the landlord. From the decree of the learned Province Judge there are cross revisions before this Court. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at great length, and we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Province Judge should not be disturbed.

There is no doubt that the house was in bad condition, and the municipal authorities had ordered the landlord to demolish the offending structure. The landlord had certainly informed the tenant of the demands of the Municipality. But no heed being paid to his solicitations by the tenant, the landlord had no option left but to take the matter into his own hands. His action was perfectly bona fide. It is also correct that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the month of February — the rent being paid in June when the tenant thought about facing the present suit. The question whether the damage was really due to the action of the tenant throwing the water improperly

 is not easy to decide. ‘the tenant has led no evidence while the landlord has brought. two witnesses to support him. That evidence tells against the tenant, but it cannot be said that it is sufficiently strong to prove misuse by the tenant. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that there should be no Payment for the so-called trespass nor for any damages for the misuse. Regarding storage the amount claimed for storage for four months or so works out to the rate of L.S. a month, while the rent of the whole house was L.S.6 a month. Probably there were not much in the way of belongings to be stored, and they could not have occupied more than one room in a demolished house.

Taking all facts together we hold that the order of the learned Province Judge was substantially correct. We uphold it and dismiss both the revision and the cross-revision. There will be no order as to

costs.

M.A. Abu Rannat, C.J. : I concur.

Applications dismissed.