ALI EL TAYEB IMAM v YOUSIF KOURTI

(COURT OF APPEAL)*

AC. REV. 373-1963

Principles

· andlord and Tenant-Standard rent of new premises-Rent Restrication Ordinance, s, 4-Cost price means cost price at the time of construction-Depreciationn should not be considered

The “cost price” with referece to new premises under Rent Restricition Ordinance s, 4, means the cost price at the time of the construction. Therefore in assessing the standard rent of such premises there should be no deduction made from the valuation of the premises as depreciation.

Judgment

Advocate; Mussab A, el Sarag……………………………..for respondent

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. march 30. 1964:-Applicant is the lanlord of plot 2 Block 3 C. Burri El Deraysa comprising 600 square metres and resondent was his tenant. On March 14. 1964, applicant brought an action claiming recovery of arrears of rent and prayed for an order of repossession. Before the suit was concluded, respondent vacated the house in question and the only point remained for determination was the stanard rent.

It is admitted that the contractual rent was Łs.15 per month, but respondent contended that the standard rent was only Łs.9.000 /ms.

Both parties agreed that the house was built in 1952 and consequently an assessment of the cost price has to be ascertained by the court.

A certain contractor gave evidence for applicant and according to his estimates, the cost of the buildings was Ł s 1.459.500m/ms. For respondent, a qulified engineer produced a report which estimated the cost of the buildings at Ł s. 1,107.785 m/ms. The District Judge prefered the estimates made by the respondent’s expert witness and found that the standard rent was Łs. 11.077 m/ms.

On application for revision by applicant to the judge of the High Court, the application was summarily dismissed. This application is against the decision fixing the standard rent at Ł s.11.077 m/ms.

Before us applicant submits that the assessment made by the respondent’s expert witness did not include, first, the price of the land, and secondly, that a sum of Ł s.300 for depreciation was wrongly deducted from the valuation made by him.

Respondent’s advocate did not specifically reply to these two points, but he only contends that the District Judge is entitled to believe the experts evidence as he is qualified engineer with experience in these matters.

It is clear from the record that the price of land which was Łs.34 was not accounted for when the assessment of the standard rent was made. As to the Łs, 300 which was deducted from the valuation made by respondent’s expert witness as depreciation, I do not think that such a deduction was right.

The interpretation clause under the Rent Restricionn Ordinace, s, 4 , reads “Standard rent means with reference to new premises-an annual sum equal to 12 per centum of the cost price of the construction of such premises …” the cost price means the cost price at the time of the construction and therefore it is wrong to make a deduction of this sum the standard rent should therefore be:

Łs, 407.785m/ms. ×12% = Ł s.1,689.340 m/ms per annum

1,689.340 ÷12 = 14.077m/ms. per menses

000.340 × 6 = 2.040m/ms

2.000 ÷ 12 = .166m/ ms.

The standard rent is therefore Łs.14.077m/ms. plus 166m/ms=Łs. 14.243m/ms.

It is admitted that respondent was in arrears for four months:

Łs, 14.243 m/ms × 4= Ł s. 56.972 m/ms.

There shall be a decree for Łs.56.972m/ms. And costs

Babiker Awadalla J. March 30,1964: - I Concur.

* court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. and Babiker Awadalla j.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

ALI EL TAYEB IMAM v YOUSIF KOURTI

[Back]

Case No.:

AC. REV. 373-1963

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1966