Case No.:

(AC-Revision-320-1960

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Iandlord and tenant—Recovery of po of shop for personal use—” Essential” requirement—Rent Restriction Ordinance, s. 11 (e)

An owner of a number o shops brought an action for the recovery of possession of one of theni, on the ground of personal requirement. He had no traders’ licence.
 Held: The essentials of the cause of action were not proved. All that plaintiti adduced in support of his allegation that he needs the shop in dispute was that it suited him best, and that he intended to start a drapers business. This statement was accepted by the court below without question, and no attempt made to examine the position of his other shops.
 
.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

 MOHAMED AHMED YOUSJF v. AHMED OMER AHMED

(AC-Revision-320-1960 

Revision

The facts are set out in the judgment of B. Awadalla. J.

Advocates: Abdel Wahab El Khidir… for applicant

                       Osman Mansour………… for respondent

December 20,1960.B. Awadalla I.: —This is an application against the summary dismissal by the Honourable the Judge of the High Court Khartoum of an application to him against the decree of District Judge Omdurman in CS/200/60.

The case is one of eviction under section 11 (e) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Suit was instituted on February 4, 1960, by Advocate Osman Mansour on behalf of the landlord claiming eviction of shop 21 Block 24 Omdurman Suk let out to applicant at a monthly rent of £S.12 on the ground that he requires it for his own occupation. Applicant admitted the tenancy but disputed the allegation that the landlord required the shop for his own use. He further contended that the standard rent for the shop was only £S.7.500m/ms and counterclaimed for £S.27 under section i8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Issues were framed by the District Judge as to the standard rent and the allegation of personal requirement ol the shop by the landlord.

During the hearing, it transpired that the landlord had three or four shops in the Omdurman Suk, but that he is not a licensed trader. It was also admitted by the landlord himselI that the shop was “old” within the meaning of the Ordinance and that applicant was in occupation thereof on July 1, 1951 It was alleged by the landlord that he lost his licence because he had been to Egypt for treatment and that he chose the shop in question in preference to his other shops for no reason other than that it “suited him best.” Applicant on the other hand says that the reason for this eviction case was the reduction of the rent by him from £S.15 to £S.12 consequent on the 1958 amendment. He stated on oath that the rent he was paying on July 1, 1951, was only £S.7.500m/ms.

The District Judge found that the standard rent for the shop was £S.7.500m/ms only but accepted the statement of the landlord that he required the shop for his own occupation and so granted him the relief he claimed. In framing the decree, however, no order was made on the counterclaim.

The Honourable the Judge of the High Court in the application him referred to the above discrepancy and drew the attention of the District Judge for its correction but nothing seems to have been done.

Before us, applicant was represented by advocate Abdel Wahab El Khidir and respondent by Advocate Osman Mansour. Abdel Wahab argued on behalf of applicant that the provisions of section 11 (e) call for much more than what was proved in this case. I entirely agree with him. 1 think that those provisions would be a dead letter if a landlord is allowed to come before the court and make assertions which are obviously incapable of sustaining the test of “essential” requirement. Here we have a land lord who admits he has several shops, choosing one of which the tenant was in occupation for at least ten years and claiming that the particular shop is now required by him because it suits his objects best. He does not deny that he holds no traders’ licence and he contends he had given up business because he was sick and had to go to Egypt. He was not at all asked what sort of business he was doing before going to Egypt and his statement that he is going to start a draper’s business is accepted without question. There is no doubt that the facts themselves show that respondent could not have been doing any substantial business before going to Egypt, because it cannot be conceived that if his business were of a substantial character, he would give it up completely because he was going temporarily outside the Sudan for treatment. To the question why he chose the par ticular shop, he answered that it suited him best. He only acquired this shop in 1956 according to his own statement, and applicant had been occupying it for a considerable time before, at any rate since July 1, 1951. Iam unable to understand how a person who had been doing no business for several years can be believed to say that his “business requirements” make it essential for him to recover a specific shop! - Even assuming for the sake of argument that he wants to start a draper’s business and considers that the shop in question is best suited for that purpose’that is an allegation which it is impossible to prove without taking into consideration the posi tion of all the shops owned by him and at any rate even if such allegation could have been substantiated, we are satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the attitude of respondent when examined by the court, the facts are far short of satisfying the requirements of section 11 (e) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The story of applicant that the reduction in the rent was the cause of this litigation is no doubt much more acceptable.

This application is therefore allowed and the decree of the District Judge is hereby reversed. Applicant shall also have a decree on the counter claim for £S.27 and costs both here and in the courts below.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.: —I concur.

(Application allowed)

 Court: M. .4. Abu Ronnat C.J., B. Awadalla J.