Principles

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Husband and wife tenancy — Wife’s payment of one month’s rent does not Imply obligations of tenant — Wife Is agent of husband.

·  AGENCY — Authority of wife — Rent — Husband’s obligation to support implies wife acts as husband’s agent In paying rent.

·  FAMILY LAW — Husband’s obligation to provide place of living.

A wife’s payment of one month’s rent out of a year, all other payments having been made by the husband, does not imply the wife’s obligations as a tenant: she is held to be acting as the husband’s agent, since the husband is responsible for her support

A wife’s payment of one month’s rent out of a year, all other payments having been made by the husband, does not imply the wife’s obligations as a tenant: she is held to be acting as the husband’s agent, since the husband is responsible for her support

A wife’s payment of one month’s rent out of a year, all other payments having been made by the husband, does not imply the wife’s obligations as a tenant: she is held to be acting as the husband’s agent, since the husband is responsible for her support

Judgment

Advocates:       Hassan Koheil ………………………for applicant

Ahmed Guina’a………………………………. for respondent

G. A. Lutfi, P. J., May 6, 1961:— This is an application for revision of the order of His Honour, Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, to dismiss summarily an application for revision of a decree passed by District Judge, Khartoum, on November 7, 1960 in CS-2917-l959.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

Respondent Taghaful Eissa Shousha is the owner of House No. 4, Block No. 3 E.E., Khartoum. Applicant Jannet Shousha is her daughter- in-law. She is the wife of Bahig Shousha, respondent’s son.

In 1952 respondent allowed’ applicant and her son (Bahig) to live in the said house for £S.5 as monthly rent. The rent was paid for about a year and then discontinued. Respondent, who seemed to have been on good terms with the applicant and her son, kept silent and did not take any action for the recovery of the arrears of rent until 1957, when she asked her advocate, Ahmed Guma’a, to send a letter to her son claiming the rent for 13 months. The letter was not answered, and on December 9, 1959 she sued both her son and applicant. On November 7, 1960 a decree was passed by District Judge, Khartoum, against both applicant and her husband for the arrears of rent, amounting to £S.70, and they were ordered to deliver possession of the premises in question to respondent. The applicant by her advocate (Hassan Koheil) applied to His Honour, Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, for . the revision of the aforesaid decree. On February 27, 1960 her application was summarily dismissed. She applied for the revision of the order of His Honour, Judge of the High Court on the following grounds:

(a) That she ought not to have been joined in this suit because it is not her concern as a wife to provide accommodation for their living, but it is the husband’s (Bahig Shousha’s) responsibility to do so.

• Court: 3. Aw.dalla,J. and G. A. Latfi,?. J.

(b) That the respondent could not prove that there was any tenancy agreement between her and applicant.

(c) That it was admitted by her husband that she has nothing to do with the matter and that it was he who has agreed with his mother.

(d) Respondent wanted to drag her to Court owing to the recent differences which have taken place between her and, her husband.

On the other hand, the respondent by her advocate Ahmed Guma’a contends as follows:

(a) That on February 6, 1960 the applicant’s advocate made an ap plication to the Court below to dismiss the claim In respect of his client, but his application was rejected and therefore he cannot raise the same point again.

(b) That the applicant was paying the rent herself for about 14 months.

(c) That the applicant was the tenant responsible as regards payment of rent because her husband has no money, while she used to work and pay from her own earnings.

(d) That a receipt for the payment of rent was in her name.

(e) That there is nothing in law to prevent the applicant from being a party to a tenancy agreement.

In this Court’s opinion, the learned District Judge was correct in finding that the house was given in accordance with a tenancy agreement and for a monthly rent amounting to £S. 5. This is c1early established by the receipts produced and the failure of applicant an her husband to prove the contrary. But the finding as regards the decree against applicant is not in accordance with the weight of evidence. The learned District Judge has based his decision on two grounds:

(a) That the applicant had paid the rent for August, 1952, by herself on October 5, 1952; and

(b) That she received the letter sent by advocate Ahmed Guma’a asking for payment of arrears of rent.

Considering the first point we find the followings

(1) It is not clear from the evidence adduced that the applicant had paid the rent for August, 1952, because on the same date of payment oc August rent another receipt was issued for the payment of July rent in the name of the husband (2nd defendant). It is evidently clear therefore that there is a mistake as regards the issuing of a receipt for August rent. It is unconventional to issue two such receipts with two different names from the same family on the same day and forthe same

house. Moreover, the only evidence to support the allegation thai the receipt for August rent was issued in the name of applicant is the letter “s” after the word “Mr.” and this itself is not clear on the receipt The letter “r” in the word “Mr.” might have been hooked in such a way as to make the reader believe that there is an “s” after the “r.” And even if the August rent was paid by applicant, it is not adequate evidence to prove that she was a tenant because one receipt, which is itself not clear, in a bundle of receipts cannot be taken as evidence of a tenancy agreement, especially when regard is had to the fact that the applicant’s husband Continued to pay the rent after that and receipts were issued in his name until payment was stopped.

(2)  It is not correct to consider the payment of rent for one month by a wife as evidence of being a tenant. The husband is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and to provide a suitable house for her living, and if the wife happens once to pay the rent on his behalf she will not be doing so as a tenant but as an agent, and she can even pledge his credit if he fails to carry out his duties in this respect.

(3) In addition to all the above, the husband admitted on oath in the Court below that his wife, the applicant, had nothing to do with the renting of the said house and that it was his sole responsibility

Taking the second point, we find that the receipt by applicant of the advocate’s letter claiming arrears of rent is not evidence to prove the point in issue, which is the existence of a tenancy agreement with the wife It was addressed to her husband and not to her, which shows clearly that it was known to respondent that it was not her concern. Otherwise her name ought to have been mentioned in the said letter.

So according to law and facts proved there is nothing to justify the inference that the applicant was a party to the tenancy agreemeat.

This application is therefore allowed and the decision of the District Judge, Khartoum, to the extent of the orders against 1st defendant Jannet Shousha), is hereby reversed with costs here and in the Court below.

B.Awadalla, J., May 6, 1961:.— 1 concur