(COURT OF APPEAL)

UMBERTO ARGIRY v. MOHAMED BAKRI GASIM

AC-RE V-275- 1960

Principles

· Landlord and Tenant—Eviction for non-payment of rent—Landlord’s habitual acceptance of late payments—No estoppel or waiver—Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953 ; s. ii (a)

· A landlord habitual acceptance of late payments of rent is no defence, either of waiver or estoppel. to an action for eviction for non-payment of rent lawfully due.

Landlord and Tenant—Eviction for non-payment of rent—Landlord’s habitual acceptance of late payments—No estoppel or waiver—Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953 ; s. ii (a)

A landlord habitual acceptance of late payments of rent is no defence, either of waiver or estoppel. to an action for eviction for non-payment of rent lawfully due.

Judgment

Advocates: Aziz M. Safwat …. for applicant

Hamid Ellias ………………..for respondent

M. A. Hassib J. (by authority of the Chief Justice). September 1, 1960 :—This application is hopeless and should be summarily dismissed. The order for possession was based on non-payment of rents falling due and unpaid when the suit was made.

The applicant (tenant) contended in this and in the lower courts that he used to delay payment and that the landlord used to accept payments which were not in time. He urged that that habit should be relied on as estoppel or waiver. -

The judge of the High Court dismissed the application for revision before him summarily.

In Bird v. Hildage [1948] 1 KB. 91, it was decided that rent lawfully due is a ground for possession even if the landlord has accepted unpunctual payments.

I therefore dismiss the application summarily under Civil Justice Ordinance, s. 176 (i).