Principles

·  LANDLORD AND TENANT Recovery of possession Rent Restriction Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1958, s. 2(3) Evidence required to prove possession ‘essential” to landlord’s business.

To recover possession of premises under Rent Restriction Ordinance 1953, s., 11(e), as amended by Rent Restriction Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1958, s. 2(3), the landlord must adduce evidence of the nature and volume of the business involved and the difficulties to be encountered . . . if he were denied the relief sought,” Helen Dirpiafis v. Heirs of ,Ahmed El Mahdi (1960) S.L.J.R. 164.

Judgment

Advocates: Abdalla El Hassan ……………………for applicant

Mutasim El Tagalawi.………………………….for respondent

Babiker Awadalla, J., January 15, 1962:— this is an application against the decision of the Honourable Judge of the High Court. Blue Nile Circuit, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Wad Medani, in CS-664-l959.

The case is one of eviction  in which plaintiff-respondent claimed recovery of possession of his shop occupied by defendant-applicant on the ground that he (plaintiff) needs it for his own business. The claim was contested and an issue as to plaintiff’s needs was framed. The e disclosed that plaintiff is carrying on the business of contractor and owns a brick kiln. He appears to have started business on his own only in 1959, prior to which he was working with his father, apparently also a contractor. The shop in question and other immovable property at Wad Medanidevolved to him  by inheritance from his grandfather, apparently not long before institution of this suit. The evidence shows that plaintiff chose this shop in preference to othet shops owned by him in the locality because of its unique position, which renders it easily accessible to his customers,

The defendant, who is shown in the statement of claim to be also a contractor, had been occupying this shop since 1924, at a present rent of £s. 5. He is contending that plaintiff is instituting this suit because he had failed to secure from him a loan of. 500 and an increase in the rent.

In giving judgment for plaintiff, the learned District Judge said:

“On considering plaintiff’s evidence, I am satisfied that plaintiff certainly needs the premises for his own use. Plaintiff himself has come into the witness bo and has produced three witnesses to prove his necessity. Plaintiff, who began his business a year ago, must have a place of business in the market area. Plaintiff has produced his business licence, which clearly shows that he is not claiming eviction unneccessarily.”

The defendant applied to the Honourable Judge of the High Court, referring to the 1958 amendment of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, (Rent Restriction Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1958, s. 2(3).) In the course of his submissions, he contended that this case is on all fours with Arahi Ahmed Abu Sara v. El Sheikh Moharned Hamid, (1956) S.L.J.R. 96, where a claim for recovery of possession was refused upon proof that it was preceded by several attempts to increase the rent. The Honourable Judge of the High Court dismissed the application, distinguishing Arabi Ahmed Abu Sara v. El Sheikh Mohamed Hamid, supra, ,on a difference in the facts.

Before this Court advocate Abdalla El Hassan contended that the decision of the Honourable Judge of the High Court was wrong in law in that

(a) it fell short of satisfying the requirements of the 1958 amendment, and

(b) it was against the weight of evidence, as it ignored facts showing that the claim is not genuine.

Advocate Tagalawi, for respondent, replied as follows:

(a) As regards (a) above the decision of the Honourable judge  of the High Court was in conformity with the 1958 amendment interpreted by this Court in Helen Dirpiatis v. heirs  of Ahmed el Mahdi, (1960) S.1..J.R. 164, and

(h) The evidence adduced in the Court in derogation of the genuineness of the claim was in fact irrelevant to the point  in controversy

In my view and on the facts as they stand, 1 think a claim for recovery of possession of the shop in question is bound to fail. The landlord (respondent) adduced evidence that he is a contractor and owns a brick kiln, but this of itself is far short of proving that in all the circumstances it is essential for him to have the use of the shop for the purpose of his business. At the most. he has proved that he “requires” a shop. but that is not enough. The objects of the 1958 amendment would be defeated if a landlord can be said to discharge his onus by simply alleging a specific trade and then prods a current trade licence in support of his contention. The purpose for which the premises are required,” within the meaning of Section 11(e), cannot be determined without adequate evidence of the nature and volume of the business involved and the difficulties to be encountered by the landlord if he were denied the relief sought. Two facts in the present case were lost sight of. which in my view are absolutely inconsistent with that “necessity”, proof of which the amendment makes imperative. These are: (a) the fact that the landlord could manage to run his business so far without the need for a shop, and (b) the fact that he failed to adduce evidence of the lack of vacant shops equally adequate for his purpose at Medani Town.

For the above reasons, this application is allowed with costs, and the decision of the Honourable Judge of the High Court confirming that of the learned District Judge, Wad Medani. is hereby reversed.

The attention of the learned District Judge is drawn to the fact that no action is to be allowed relating to registered land unless the petition is accompanied by a Land Registry Certificate.

M.A. Abu Rannat:. C.J., January 15, 1962:— 1 concur.