(COURT OF APPEAL)

HUSSEIN KHALIL v. SALEH MUSTAFA ORTASHI

AC-REV.130.1960

. Principles

·  Landlord and Tenant—Eviction—Non-payment of rent—No eviction where landlord failed to supply statement of standard rent upon tenant’s request—Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, S. 17

·  Landlords failure to supply a statement of standard rent upon tenant’s request may bar the relief of eviction for non-payment of rent

Landlord and Tenant—Eviction—Non-payment of rent—No eviction where landlord failed to supply statement of standard rent upon tenant’s request—Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, S. 17

Landlords failure to supply a statement of standard rent upon tenant’s request may bar the relief of eviction for non-payment of rent

Judgment

Advocate: Abdulla El Hassan ... for applicant

M. A. Hassib J. June 27, 1960:—The subject-matter of this application is the possession of shop No. 15 Block 4 W.F., Khartoum City, and also rents in arrear. Applicant is the landlord and respondent is the tenant of the said shop.

On June 14, 1959, plaintiff (applicant) obtained a decree in the Court of the District Judge in CS.1850-1957  On an application for revision of the decree on June ‘4 , 1959, by the respondent, the learned Province Judge in HC-REV-240- 1959 set aside the said decree of June 14, 1959, and substituted for it another in favour of applicant which declared lesser standard rent and ordered payment of rents in arrear. It did not grant applicant an

order for possession.    -

Hence this application for revision of the decree of the Province Judge on the grounds that the Province Judge had misdirected himself for:

(1) disturbing a finding of fact concerning the value of land and cost of construction of the buildings, because the principle of law is that the appellate court generally accepts the opinion of the trial judge on matters of fact; (2) holding that the failure to supply a written statement of the standard rent by the landlord when required justifies the non-payment of rent, contractual or standard; (3) accepting and acting on the uncorroborated opinion of a paid expert.

The shop is certainly new premises within the meaning of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s 4 (b). It is therefore essential to prove the cost of the construction and also the value of the land in order to ascertain the standard rent. The premises, according to the evidence before the court of first instance, were constructed in 1956—1957. The evidence showed that the tenant asked in writing for a statement of the standard rent, but no reply was given in accordance with the requirements of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, S. 17.

Though the failure to give a reply is not a ground for non-payment of rents, it is undoubtedly a ground for resisting art order for possession, and the court in refusing to give an order for possession has a sound ground for so refusing.

As to assessment of the standard rent, I find it is very difficult to disagree with the learned Province Judge. Conflicting evidence was heard on assessment both of buildings and land. The learned Province Judge accepted the assessment made on what is known as the plinth area method, the best possible way of assessment. I think he is right in doing so, owing to conflicting evidence in the trial. Once the standard rent is ascertained there would be no difficulty in calculating the amounts due to the landlord, and I think there is no grievance complained of as to the correctness of the amounts due to the applicant.

As I have already mentioned, applicant’s failure to supply the standard rent when asked for rendered his right to an order for possession unenforce able for frustration coming from his side, and therefore this application is hopeless and should be dismissed summarily.