Civil Procedure - Cau" of' action - .Accrual thereof -

Mu.t aecru. before in.t.1tution of suit - No action
quia timet.

L,ndlord and t.enant - Eviction - Common law right to poueuion of
premises mUjit be shown before and in addition to requirements
of the Rent. and Recovery of Po •• ~uion of Premia •• Restriction
Ordinance, 1943.

1. A landlord wishing to recover possessions of
prelDise. 8uliject to the Relit aud Recovery of Posse.sion
of Premi.81 Ordinance 1943 mu.t fi rst .how t.hat. be would

be entit.led to po •• e •• ion''-~(~$.~on law were it not for the
ordinance. If he fliils in tYl'is respect, t.here.is no case

 for t.he tenant to answer. If he succeeds, be must then

prove his enti·tlerDent. under the ordinance.

2. .A cau.e of dctiou must accrue before the institution of

sui t.,There is no acti on .!.U!i.! ~ in the Sudan.

Uellt. and Recovery of Possession 01 Premise8 Reatrict.ion
On.liJl(lUC~;· 11}43.

nevi !!liont

March 10, 1947.

CumingS, C.J.:

°rhe Rent and Recovery of

Possestli on of Premi ses H.esLri c.ti on Ordilla.lce 1943 operates to protect~
in t.h e cirClUDstallces there set out, an ex-tellant agm uat, hi s former
landlord who has brought a suit for the recovery of possession of the

premises which, in the libsellce 01 the ordinance, .would succeed.So the

pla.intiff rousl first show that he hus a right to possession of the premises
H: common law and if he cannot, show that, there is no case for the defendant

to answer.

The plaintif~ could not show that in this 8uit~ for it wa3

ill.tituted in August 1946, while the defendant waf entitled to poneseion of
the bouse at common law under the leaae contract until March.l~ 1947. The
lea.e cume came t o all end on February 28, 1947, becQuse the cadract 'provudi ve
in ei'1ect that t.hat shall happend if either party should n·otify the other

+ Court t Cwnillgs, C.J. and Mavrogordato, A_ G.

of his det.enoination of it two month. Defore . that date, and "tohe
plainti f1' did 80 noti fy the defendant, if not by lettere, at leust by

  the very institution of this suit.The plaintiff had thereiore

no right to poesession of the prel'llis8a at common law whell she instituted
the ui 1. nor- the two judpents ill her favour wa. ii Yen, al1.hough she has

so now.

The beat that can be said for the legaU ty of the pro'ceedillgs below
is that t.he plaintiff could be allowed some sort of 'Iuia timet action,

her tenant baving intimated that wh en the dat.e eame for him to (l,i ve up
possession at common· law be would not do 80 but would plead the ordinanco.

 We do not think that any such .uit .hiS~ld be allowed. We kilow of no

precedeDt fot it and we think it wrong in principle, however convenient it

ruay be for the lthldloro.i.lIe must wait uut r I he has a ril!-,.t t o 1'0.·;,e:;,·."'"