Principles

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT —Furnished premises — Standard rent— Furnished premIses fail under Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953.

Furnished premises are covered by the standard rent provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953

Judgment

Advocates: Abdel Rahman Yousef………………. for plaintiff

Elias George Kesses …………………………... for defendant

M.Y. Mudawi, P.J., August 11, 1964:— On July 6, 1963, plaintiff, George Agoropoulos instituted these proceedings against defendants, Sudan American Textile Industries, for the recovery of £S  480  being arrears of rent in respect of house No. 1(4) Block 5 D.E., Khartoum, and for recovery of possession of sathe. Defendants put forward the defence that no arrears are due and that the standard rent of the house is £S.40 and not £S.80 as the contract shows. He further stated that the house was let as furnished premises. and furnished premises are outside the effect of the B,ent Restriction Ordinance.

The Court framed the following issues:

1. Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance apply to this house?
2. . If so is the standard rent of the house IS. 40 per month?

Defendant

    3.   Or is it £S. 80?

Plaintiff

       4.    Does plaintiff need the house for personal use?

Plaintiff

      5.    To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled?

Before the hearing, the two parties agreed that a preliminary decree to vacate the house by defendants On April 20, 1964 be issued. The decree was issued on February 3, 1964.

The Court then proceeded to hear the part of the case dealing with the arrears on March 28, 1964.

plaintiff led evidence on some of the issues but defendant elected not to adduce any evidence.

The first question to be tackled by this court is one of law, i.e., whether the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953 applies to furnished premises. Section 16 of the Ordinance deals with the point. It reads as follows:

“If any person lets or since 1st July, 1951 has let any dwelling house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of the furniture and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court on the application of the tenant that the rent charged is yielding or will yield a profit in excess of that which might reasonably have been expected for a similar letting in the period of twelve months ending 30 June, 1951, the Court may order that the rent so far as it exceeds such reasonably expected profit shall be irrecoverable and that the amount of any pay ment of rent in excess of such profit which may have been paid in res pect of any period after 1st July, 1953, shall be repaid to the tenant.”

Though this section is a bit long-winded and ridden with complexity, yet it clearly displays the intent of the legislature to include furnished premises within the provision of the Ordinance. Indeed the section purports to impose limitations on the rent of furnished houses. The legislature undoubtedly recognizes what it purports to regulate. In viel of this, I have to decide the issue of the applicability of the Ordinance to furnished premises in favour of plaintiff.

The next part to be decided is whether the rent charged is yielding a profit which is by £S. 480 in excess of that vhich might reasonably have been expected for a similar letting in the period of twelve months ending June 30, 1951. Rent Restdction Ordinance, s. 16 simply gives the Court the power, where excess profit is proved, to order that the excess profit shall be irrecoverable by the landlord from the tenant. The Court is also in a position to order that excess profits which may have been paid in respect of any period after July 1, 1953, shall be repaid to the tenant. Excess pro fits paid to the landlord before July 15, 1953 cannot be repaid.

This Court, in order to find out the excess profit, if any, has to frame issues Nos. 1 and 2 which are intended to reveal the standard rent of the house, had it been let without furniture. Plaintiff tells us it is £S. 80 and defendant tells us it is £S. 40. Defendant did not adduce any evidence so we have to rely on the evidence of plaintiff. Plain told the Court that the house, which falls within the definition of “old premises” was let at £S. 30 per month in July 1951 and that he, plaintiff, had effected some essential repairs antointing to £S. 1947 since that date. The Court had a look at exhibit P.4 which shows the costs of the repairs. The repairs shown on the four vouchers (I.e., of March 8, 1952, February 7, 1958, April 3, 1955 and January 21, 1952) cost IS. 1447. These repairs are intended to modernize and improve the house. I think it is fair to say that part of the cost of the repairs at least was spent to bring the building to its original ccndition and the remaining part was spent to effect the improvement. I assess the improvement part, I must confess quite roughly; at two-thirds of the whole cost. Hence I put the cost of improvement at £S. 1,000. The voucher of April 1962 amounting to £S.500 is quite a new thing. It introduces the “siphon system” into the house to replace the “bu system”. The whole amount of  £S, 500 should be added to the cost to make the whole cost of repairs £S.1,500.000m/ms. According to this, the cost of rent to be added to the  1951 rent is £S.15 per month. This makes the standard rent £S. 45. The evidence shows that the rent of the furniture is about S.35 per month. In view of this it is decided that there is excess profit. Judgment is given for the plaintiff with costs.