Principles

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT - Repairs of premises by tenant — Landlord’s liability — Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s. 4—— New buildings.

A tenant may not recover from the landlord for repairs alleged to be necessary to keep premises in “good and tenantable repair” under Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1953, s. 4, where such repairs consist of construction of new buildings

Judgment

Advocate: El Rasheed Nayel ……………………for applicant

Babiker A J., October 17, 1961 :— This is an application against the decision of the Honourable Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, dismissing summarily an application to him for revision of the decree of the learned District Judge, Omdurman, CS-234-l960.

Applicant is the owner of House No. 3/3/390, Omdurman, which she let out to respondent sometime in 1957 at a monthly rent of £S.6. The tenant (respondent) fell in arrears for two months, viz., December, 1959 and January, 1960, and the landlord (applicant) instituted this suit for arrears and eviction.

The tenant denied the arrears, contending that the standard rent was only £S. 2 per month. and also counterclaimed for recovery of a sum of £S.80, the value of repairs alleged to have been made by him to the house with the consent of the landlord and on the understanding that the amount was to be deducted from the monthly rent due.

* Court: M.A. Abu Rannat, C.J. and B. Awadalla, J.

The landlord, on the other hand, denied that he had given consent for any repairs to be carried out, and the issues were framed accordingly.

After hearing the evidence on both sides, the learned District Judge found in favour of the tenant, both on the question of the standard rent and the repairs. Without making any formal expression on his adjudication of the standard rent, he dismissed the case for eviction and ordered the land lord to pay £S. 80 to the tenant on the counterclaim He was upheld on both counts by the Honourable Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, on revision. The landlord is now applying for revision of the decision of the Honourable Judge of the High Court, Khartoum.

After hearing both parties, I am satisfied that the learned District Judge was right in his finding on the standard rent, and that on the evidence as it stands, a declaration can safely be made that the standard rent for this house is £S. 2 per month.

On the question of repairs, the matter is not as easy as it appears. The respondent (the tenant) failed completely to establish an agreement under which applicant (the landlord) agreed that the repairs in question be carried out and the cost deducted from the rent, as the respondent claims. As the learned District Judge rightly found, the respondent can only succeed if he can show that such repairs were required for the purpose of keeping the premises in good and tenantable Condition within the meaning of Section 4 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953.

But what then is the meaning of the phrase “good and tenantable repairs,” as used in the Ordinance? For it is here that the learned District Judge seems to have gone astray. In Proudfoot v. Hart (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 42, 55, Lopes, Li. said: “That expression appears to me to mean such repair as, having regard to the age, character, and locality of the house, would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant of the class who would be likely to take it.” The important words to which attention should be drawn are “having regard to the age, character, and locality of the house.” Moreover the statement by Lopes, L.J. refers only to the buildings demised by the lease and can in no way be made to extend to new buildings erected by the landlord on the land since the grant of the lease. See Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant 762 (25th ed. Blundell 1954.) So a fortiori the statement cannot be construed as laying upon a convenantee (or upon a landlord under the Rent Restriction Ordinance) any duty to construct new buildings, even if these buildings were boundary walls, because otherwise the house would be converted into one not intended by the demise. A statutory tenant must be content with the state of the premises as taken over by him and he cannot by unilateral action elevate the standard of the house to a degree not contemplated by the lease and thereby impose upon the landlord an obligation which he may not be competent undertake. To make structural alterations and additions of the type now carried out by respondent is no doubt quite outside the landlord’s duty under the Ordinance, and to that extent, therefore, the decision of the learned District Judge is hereby reversed.

This application against the decision on the counterclaim is hereby allowed with costs, and the decree of the learned District Judge ordering applicant to pay to respondent a sum of £S. 80 is hereby set aside.

MA. Abu Rannat, C.J., October 17, 1961:— 1 concur.