Case No.:

(AC.Revision-56- 1960)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Landlord and tenant—Waste

A finding by a court of first instance that a certain act committed by the tenant is waste, is not such a finding of pure fact as precludes interference by an appellate court.
 

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

JOSEPH  TABET v. MUSTAFA  KAMAL RASHID (KISHO)

(AC.Revision-56- 1960)

Revision

Advocate: Ahmed Suleiman for applicant

March 8, 1960. B. Awadalla J.: —This application—having been referred to me for disposal under section 176 (1), Civil Justice Ordinance

—is hereby summarily dismissed.

I entirely agree with the conclusions of the learned Province Judge that the only act which cbuld be said to have been waste, viz., the alteration to the main door—was done with the written consent of applicant. Ex. 4 can be construed to mean nothing but that applicant was consenting to the fixing of the glass door to the face of the hotel as respondent notified him

by his letter dated November 1, 1958 (Ex. 3). 1 also agree with the learned Province Judg that having regard to the use of the premises the installation of water pipes and sinks cannot per se amount to waste of any kind.

I reject the argument of the learned advocate for applicant that the question whether there is or there is not waste in a given case is one of pure fact in which the decision of a court of first instance should not be disturbed. It is not.

                                                               Application summarily dismissed)

 Court: B. Awadalla I.. by authority of the Chief Justice.