Principles

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT— Sub-let — Landlords verbal consent — Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s. 20(I) — Waiver of condition of written consent may be proved — Tenant’s admission not to preclude full hearing.

Tenant’s admission that he sub-let premises merely on Landlord’s verbal consent does not debar him from a hearing or from calling witnesses, since the facts may show that the Landlord is precluded by waiver from invoking the statutory condition of written  consent. Aslan Seroussi v. Derhedrossian Bros (1961) St. JR. 174.

Judgment

Advocate . Ali Mohamed Shammam ……………for respondent

Court : M. A. Abu Rannat, C. J. and A. R. El Nur, P. J

M. A. Abu Rannot, C.J.  June 5, 1961:— Plaintiffs Daseena Gonaris and Panayoti Gonaris are husband and wife. House No. 13, Block 10, Deim El Medina, Port Sudan Town, is registered in the name of the wife, Daseena Gonaris. The second plaintiff being the husband and agent of the first plaintiff, let the house to the defendant at a monthly rent of £S. 2.500m/ms. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant sub-let the house to a certain Idris Mahmoud, the second defendant, without obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs in writing, and they applied for an order of recovery of possession.

The defendant admitted before the District Judge that he sub-let the house with only the verbal consent of the plaintiffs, and the District Judge declined to hear the evidence of witnesses, which was applied for by the defendant. The District Judge issued a decree dated No 26, 1960, ordering the defendant to vacate the house.

On an application for revision by the defendant to the Province Judge against the above decree, the learned Judge dismissed the application summarily.

The defendant applied to me for revision, and his application was adjourned to the Court of Appeal. On the date of hearing (June 5, 1961) only the defendant appeared, although plaintiffs’ advocate was duly served with summons. Before us, the defendant stated that he only allowed the second defendant to stay in the house during his absence when he was in prison and then after his release when he went on pilgrimage.

The mere fact that defendant admits that the consent of plaintiffs was not in writing does not debar him and his Witnesses from hearing, as the circumstances may show that plaintiffs are precluded from invoking the statutory condition under Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s. 20 (1) through the operation of waiver, as was decided in Asian Seroussi v. Derbedrossian Bros., (1961) S.L.J.R. 174.

This application is allowed and it is ordered that the case be sent back with a direction that defendant and his witnesses should be heard as to the circumstances in which the consent was given.

AR El Nur, P.J. June 5, 1961:— 1 concur.