(COURT OF APPEAL) *

EL KHIDIR MOHAMED HAG vs. GALAL EL HAKEEM

and KAMIL HASSAN

AC-Revision- 143.58

Revision

Principles

Landlord and tenant—Rent control—Standard rent—Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953, S. 17

      A tenant is not allowed to question the rent until he has complied with section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953 neither is a tenant allowed to raise the question of standard rent for the first time on appeal.                   

Judgment

Advocate: Hanna George……………..  for applicant

       I6th February 1959. M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. : —The material facts for the purpose of this revision are these : —The plaintiff, who will be referred to hereinafter as “landlord “, is the registered owner of a shop known as Plot No. 3/4/112 Omdurman City. The first defendant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the “tenant “, and the second defendant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the “sub-tenant “, were in occupation of the shop in question from the 11th November1955 until the date of the hearing of this revision. The landlord claims that he let the shop in question to the tenant at a monthly rent of £S.22.500m/ms and that he never authorized the tenant to sub-let the shop to the sub-tenant. He further states that he received £S.22.500m/ms for the first month only and that up till the date of the hearing of this revision he did not receive a single millieme from the tenant. It was admitted by the tenant that he has been in occupation of the shop in question and that the rent was £S.22.500m/ms, but he con tends that he paid the rent up to15th April 1956 and that he obtained the verbal consent of the landlord for sub-letting part of the shop to the sub-tenant.                                   

     There was a third defendant by name Ahmed Abdel Dawood who was struck off by the Court, and the case proceeded against the first and second defendants only.

         In the course of hearing before the District Judge the arrears of rent were amended to cover the period 11th November 1955to 11th January 1957. After the landlord and his witnesses were heard his case was closed and a date was fixed for the tenant to be heard. On that date the landlord did not appear and the tenant gave evidence admitting arrears of rent to                                                                                                             

* Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J., M. I. el Nur J.

                                                                                                                    S.L.J.R.-3*

the extent of £S.287.550m/ms and the District Judge passed a decree for a sum of £S.328.160m/ms for principal and costs. Then the tenant applied for revision to the Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, alleging that the rent of £S.22.500m/ms was not the standard rent. The learned Judge of the High Court ordered the case to be sent back for reconsideration of the standard rent. This order was made in HC/REV/ 173/57dated 3rd July 1958. Against this order this application for revision was made to this Court by the landlord. It was contended by the landlord that the arrears of rent due from the tenant amounted to £S.720 and that the tenant was still occupying the shop without paying all this amount. He prayed for an immediate order of ejectment against both tenant and sub-tenant                                                                                                                                    .

      As we see it this application must be allowed. In the first place the tenant never raised the question of standard rent before the District Judge. A tenant cannot be allowed to question the rent until he has complied with section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953. The tenant in this case never requested the landlord in writing to supply him with a written statement of the standard rent and he cannot be heard now that the rent claimed was in excess of the standard rent.                               

       In our view both the tenant and sub-tenant should be ordered to vacate the shop immediately. We confirm the decree of the District Judge concerning the admitted amounts and give leave to the District Judge to hear the further claim of the landlord as to the arrears which were not admitted by the tenant at the date of the District Judge’s decree which was passed in the absence of the landlord. It is then for the tenant to prove that he paid some of these arrears, although we feel that the allegation of payment of any rent was rather weak.                                                                               

A decree on these lines will follow.                                                                               

16th February 1959. M. 1. El Nur J.: —I concur.

                                                                                          (Application allowed)