Case No.:

(AC-Revision-60-1958)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Landloz and tenant—Rent restriction—Standard rent—Money recoverable under Rent Restriction Ordinance, s. 10—s. 18

In an action for the recovery of sums paid by the tenant in excess of the standard’ rent, the District Judge ordered the landlord to repay to the tenant thirty-four months’ excess. This was ubheld by the Province Judge. On revision, *
Held the tenant could not recover more than six months’ excess, to which only he was entitled under sectio 18 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
Mohamed Osman v. Hassan Abu Mirein. (AC-Revision-45-1957) followed.
Quaere: Whether section i8 was intended to prevent the recovery of more than six months excess and to limit the operation of lection to. And whether it was not intended merely to provide an alternative and extra.judicial remedy as far .s payments made within the six months are concerned.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)*

AHMED MOHAMED AHMED v. WALL HAMMAD

(AC-Revision-60-1958)

Revision

The facts are set out in the judgment of B. Awadalla J.

Advocate: Abdalla Awad Abdel Hadi for the applicant. Respondent appeared in person.

August 10, 1959. B. Awadalla J.: —This is an application against the decision of the Province Judge, Kassala, confirming the decision of the

*Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. and B. Awadalla J.

District Judge, Port Sudan, calling upon applicant to pay to respondent a sum of £S.64.48o, being money recoverable by the latter under section Io of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and costs.

Applicant is an owner of a shop at Pbrt Sudan, which was for a very long time let out to respondent for use as a coffee shop until a few months before the date of the action. After vacating the shop, respondent claimed £S.51 being thirty-four months’ excess at £S. 1.5 per month. He contended that the standard rent was £S.I.500m/ms and that it was raised to £S.3.000m/ms in October 1953. Applicant contested this allega tion and an issue as to the standard rent was framed and answered in favour of respondent. Applicant was accordingly ordered to repay to respondent all the amounts paid in excess of the standard rent for the last thirty-four months.

This application now questions the legality of allowing respondent to recover more than six months’ excess. Before us applicant was repre sented by advocate Abdalla Awad Abdel Hadi and he cited section i8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. This section reads as follows:

“If any rent or other sum, by this Ordina declared to be irrecoverable by the landlord or recoverable by the tenant, has within six months immediately preceding the claim for its recovery been paid by or on behalf of the tenant to the landlord, such sum may without prejudice to any other method of recovery be deducted in three monthly instalments by the tenant from any rent payable by him to the landlord or may be recovered as a civil debt.”

One may be inclined to say that this section does not at all prevent the recovery of more than six months’ excess, for it was not intended to limit the operation of section zo but was simply intended to provide an alternative and extra-judicial remedy in so far as payments within the last six months are concerned.

Considering the wording of the section and the fact that the Ordi nance itself was given retroactive effect for a period of six months, the plausibility of, the argument is obvious Jut such an interpretation is now impossible in view of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Mohamed Osman v. Hassan Abu Mirein (AC.Revision-45-1957).

We are therefore of opinion that tbe decision of the Province Judge (confirming that of the District Judge, Port Sudan) is wrong and that applicant cannot be ordered to repay more than £S.9.ooom/ms and pro portional costs. This appeal is therefore allowed and the decree of the District Judge amended accordingly.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.: —I concur

                                                    (Appeal allowwed)