Principles

·  CIVIL PROCEDURE_cross-examination  — No adjournment to prepare cross-examination of expert witness.

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT_Standard rent— New premises forming part- of larger whole --- Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s. 4 (b) applies.

Adjournment will not be granted for the purpose of preparing cross.examination of a civil engineer who gave oral testimony along with written estimates.
Standard rent for new premises is defined by Rent Restriction Ordinance j953, s. 4(b), even though the premises in question forms part of a larger .hole, in such cases, therefote, no reference is to be made to the Governor under Section 4. (d). [ Governors’ powers under Section 4 (d) have been transferred to the Province Authorities by the Provincial Administration (Consequential Amendments) Act 1961.]. Seferian and Co., Ltd. v. International Trading Co., HC (1961) S.L.J.R. 219, overruled.

Judgment

Advocates: Abdalla El Hassan………………….. for applieant

Mutasim El Tagalawi ………………………pro se, respondent

Babiker Awadalla, J., October 17, 1961:— This is an application for revision of the order of the onourable judge of the High Court. Khartoum. setting aside the decree of the learned District Judge. Omdurman in CS- 1340-1960, and ordering reference of the issue to the Governor. Khartoum. under Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s 4(d). This suit was originally instituted on September 14, 1960 by applicant (the landlord) for eviction of respondent (the tenant) on grounds of the latter’s failure to pay rent law fully due.

It appears from the proceedings that the respondent disputed the legal ity of.the rent claimed as being in excess of that allowable under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and an issue. to that effect was framed. The prem ises being new, the Court proceeded to hear e led by applicant (plaintiff in the suit), concerning the cost-price of the construction of the

S Court : M. A. Abu Rasinat, C. I. and B. .Awadalla, J.

whole building, of which the premises in dispute form only a part. This evidence consisted of the oral testimony of a civil engineer, who also submitted written estimates. The respondent (defendant in the suit) applied for a copy of the estimates and an adjournment, with a view to preparing himself to cross-examine the civil engineer, but the Court refused to grant the application. The respondent applied to the Honourable Judge of the High Court against the order of the Court refusing the application, but bcfore his application was attended to the case was again up for hearing and as respondent was not prepared to proceed, the Court gave judgment against him on the merits.

The respondent again applied to the Judge of the High Court against the decree, and the Honourable Judge of the High Court set aside the decree on the ground that the case was one in which the question as to standard rent ought to have been referred to the Governor under Section 4(d), and ordered its reference accordingly. It is against this order that the present application is now being made.

In my opinion the Honourable Judge of the High Court was wrong. Section 4(d) applies only to old premises where, by reason of their non- occupation on July I. 1951, or their occupation by the  landlord himself at that time or for any other reason, application of the criterion laid down in Section 4(a) is impossible.

The reason given by the Honourable .Judge of the High Court for his decision is that the premises let to respondent form part of a larger whole. The Honourable Judge of the High Court refers to two older. and similar decisions made by him and in which the same question was referred to the Governor under Section 4(d) . The reason given for such reference in the first case was that,, . . . the ‘premises’ in dispute is a single detached office, one of a block of offices, in a-first storey building.” Seferian and Co.. Ltd V. internatonal trading company ., HC-REV- (1961) S.L.J.R. 219. There is no doubt that this reasoning is not sound. The word “premises” is defined in Rent Restriction Ordinance, s. 4, as “any building or part of a building wether occupied to her with any land or not which is the subject of a separate tenancy actual or potential .‘‘ (Italics added). The Other older case dealt with by the Honourable Judge of the High Court. and referred to in his decision, is Cliristos Simos v. contomichatos  Estates, Ltd., HC-REV-363-1960. His decision in this case was based on the same grounds as in the Seferian  case supra  but in the Court of Appeal the application  was summarily dismissed because reference of the issue to the Governor was correct, not on the grounds relied upon here by the Honourable judge of the High Court. but because the premises occupied by the tenant in that case were old premises forming part of a larger building which in its intirely was let for an adivisible (AC.APP.7-1961))

That being the case. the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge was no doubt correct. Respondent had no right to an adjournment in order to cross—examine a witness Who was available for such cross—examination on the day he gave his evidence considering also the conduct of  respondent on December 14, 1960, there is no doubt that the object of respondent was to delay the disposal of the case, and the Court was quite justified in ignoring his application and giving judgment on the merits.

This application is therefore allowed with costs. The order of the Honourable Judge of the High Court is hereby set aside and the decree of the learned District Judge dated December 14. 1960 is restored.

MA. Abu Rannat, C.J.  October 17, 1961 :-.-- I concur.

Editors’ Note: The case distinguished in the judgment, Christos Simos v. Contomichalos Estates, Ltd., AC-APP-7-1961, dealt with a newly partitioned and refurbished office in an old building that had formerly been let out as a whole. In confirming the High Courts’ reference of the case to the Governor, the Court of Appeal (per M A. Abu Rannat, C.J.) said:

“There has been a complete change in the nature of the building, and it is difficult to apportion parts of it and say that the rent for that part should be so much per month.”