Case No.:

(AC.Revision.174-1960)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Landlord and tenant—Meaning of “ essential” and “own use” where landlords are several co Restriction Ordinance, s. 11 (e) 

·  0

Where a rent-restricted shop belongs to several co-owners (as heirs of a common ancestor), it is sufficient to show that one of the co-owners needs it for an essential purpose for his own use: such use counting as use by the co-owners for the purposes of Rent Restriction Ordinance, s. 11 (e)

0

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)*

ABDALLA SUROUR v. MEDANI HAG EL TAHIR AND OTHERS

(AC.Revision.174-1960)

Revision

Advocate: Omer El Nur Khamis ...... for applicant

June 18, 1960. M.A. Hassib I. :—The shop in the premises known as Plot No. 2 of Block 10 Gedaref Suk is the registered property of the heirs of Hag El Tahir, namely:

(1) Medani Hag El Tahir

(2) Mohamed Hag El Tahir

(3) Masarra Hag El Tahir

(4) Khadiga Hag El Tahir

(5) Fatma Hag El Tahir

(6) Neima Hag El Tahir

(7) Zeinab HagEl Tahir

(8)Macca Hag El Tahir

No. 2 Mohamed Hag El Tahir is a minor of about eight years and No. 1 is his guardian. Defendant is the tenant of the said premises from the former landlord, i.e., the ancestor of plaintiffs.

The law contained in section 11 (e) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance (as amended) is as follows:

“…. the landlord requires the premises for some purpose other than as a residence for his own use . . . and the tenant is not using them as a residence, and the landlord proves to the satisfaction of the court that it is in all the circumstances essential for him to have the use of those premises for that purpose.”

Plaintiff No. 1brought the suit to the court of origin claiming arrears of rent and eviction because he required the premises for his own use. Later on the plaintiff’s advocate joined the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs and the suit was tried on whether the plaintiffs required the premises for their own use.

The District Judge did not find for the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit, but on revision to the Province Judge the learned judge set aside the dismissal order and substituted a decree for plaintiffs. Hence this applica- tion in the Appeal Court.

The question for determination in this court is whether the landlords proved to the satisfaction of the court that it is in all the circumstances essential for them to have the use of the shop. Plaintiffs relied on the sworn statement of plaintiff No. 1 and in rebuttal defendant gave his own statement only. . Plaintiff No. 1 states that he is the agent of all co-plaintiffs and he wants the shop for use by him, He proved he needed it for his business, He has a traders’ licence and has no other shop for his work.

The learned Province Judge inferred from the facts proved that the plaintiffs’ claim was genuine and that it was in the circumstances essential for them to have the shop for use by them, I think this inference’ is correct and should not be disturbed,

(Application summarily dismissed)

M. A. Hassib J. sitting summarily authorised by C.J.