(HIGH COURT KHARTOUM) SALIH YAHIA EL OMRANI ….……….. Applicant and NEGIB IBRAHIM EL YAS ……………. Respondent (HG-REV-36-1956 Revision Principles · Rent control - restriction on right of landlord to recover possession - requirement for Own Use — landlord owning other property equally available for such use no bar to remedy In an action by a landlord against a tenant for recovery of possession of a shop required for landlords extension of business, it was contended on behalf of the tenant — inter alia — that the landlord had other shops equally available for such purpose. It was found as a fact that the landlord genuinely required the shop for the said purpose and the landlord admitted he had other shops all let Out to tenants. Held: that a tenant cannot say that his premises are not reasonably required merely because the landlord has other tenants against whom he might have proceeded, for as long as the landlord satisfied the Court that he reasonably requires the shop for his own use it must be left to him to say which of his shops he desires to occupy. Decree of District Judge Omdurman affirmed application for revision dismissed Judgment The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of Osman El Tayeb, P.J. Advocates: Younis Nigm ……………….for Applicant El Fatih Aboud …………………………..for Respondent Osman El Tayeb, P.J. This is a case of eviction with respect to hops known as Plot No. 487/2/4 (A) & (B) Omdurman Town, property of respondent. A decree by District Judge Omdurman dated 18.3.56 was passed in favour of respondent for an order of possession against which applicant is now applying in this revision. The case was instituted against two other persons by names Mohammed Mahmoud Ismail and Ahmed Arbab Abu Seifein. Applicant was joined as third defendant by order-dated 23.10.55. On 11.1.56 the Court entered that 1st defendant submitted to ejectment on 1 .7.1956 and an order was made that the case would proceed against third defendant (Applicant). No mention about second defendant. It appears as the case actually proceeded against applicant and that the decree was passed against him alone that the other two defendants were struck off. But the Court failed to make this clear by order or orders to this- effect. In which case the title of the case ought to have been amended. It is also observed that no fees were ordered not collected for joining the applicant. It is also observed that no hearing fees were collected. The District Judge neglected to make the order for collection, and the responsible clerk allowed the mistake to exist uncorrected. Coming to the merits of the case, I find-that there is only one issue whether plaintiff requires the shop for his own use. It is an application made under section ii (e) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance The agreement on behalf of the applicant is that he was not genuine in his claim that he requires the premise for his personal use. This argument is based on three points - 1. That respondent has other shops in which he can extend his business. 2. That he asked for- increase of rent which applicant refused, -and, 3. That he was avoiding competition of applicant by making him shift to another place It was found by the District Judge, according to the evidence before him, that respondent was genuine in his claim for the shop for his own use, and that his shop presently occupied by him is not sufficient for his business, and that the business is extending. The District Judge ruled against the allegations of increase of rent and of competition These are matters of facts, and on the evidence, I think it is not unreasonable for the District Judge to find them in the way he did. It is true that respondent has shops other than that leased to applicant. These other shops are not vacant, they are occupied by tenants. And in that I agree with the submission of Advocate for respondent that the landlord is not under any obligation as to which of his premises he should choose. The quotation from Megany on the Rent Acts, 7th. ed. p. 262 : “and “a tenant cannot say that his premises are not reasonably required “merely because the landlord has other tenants against whom he might have proceeded for as long as the landlord satisfies the court. that he ‘reasonably requires the house to live in. It must be left to him to say “which of his houses he desires to occupy” It is further established that the shop in dispute is more convenient .correspondent for his business.- I also see this from the fact that respondent indetermined to demolish this shop and build it in a modern and decent fashion to make it more suitable for his purposes. This is clear from the drawing made and approved-by the authorities and the building permit dated 12.6.1956 etc. On these grounds, the applicant for revision is dismissed with costs (Application dismissed)