(COURT OF APPEAL)*

ELSHA AL! SID AHMED v. ALI DAWOUD

AC-REV-

 Principles

·  Local Government—Demolition order—Khartoum Municipal Council, Locil Order for Building Regulations, 1958, r. 55—Premises unfit for human habitation—Does not create a cause of action in civil courts for eviction—Appealable to Council or High Court—Where order is final, enforceable by Council itself

An order of demolition issued under Khartoum Municipal Councd, Local Order for Building Regulations, 1958. r. when the premises are unfit for human habitation, does not by itself create a cause of action in civil courts for eviction to landlord against tenant. When such order is issued, then it is appealable to the Council itself or to the judge of the High Court to prove that the premises are fit for human habitation. If the order becomes final, then the Council itself can enforce the order by compelling the occupier to vacate the premises.

Judgment

Advocate: Ahmed Badran for applicant

Osman El Tayeb J. October 17, 1966: —Plaintiff initiated proceedings by petition dated September 9, 1965, against defendant the tenant and occupier of the house known as plot No. 4 Bk. 5.D. East New Deims of Khartoum praying for an order of eviction of defendant on the ground that he (plaintiff) received a demolition order from the Municipal Authori ties because the said house had become dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. Defendant resisted the claim on two grounds (1) that no reasonable alternative accommodation was offered to him, and (2) that the houte is not dilapidated, not unfit for human habitation and not con stituting a risk to life or property.

No issues were framed and no evidence was adduced, except the so-called demolition order. The learned District Judge made an order of eviction, his reasons seem to be that the demolition order proved itself, and that it is sufficient evidence of the fact that the premises were unfit for human habitation; and secondly that the question of offer of alternative accommodation does not apply in this case.

On application for revision the learned Province Judge set aside the order of the Learned District Judge. The reasons are that the said notice of demolition was not so, it was a notice to comply with certain building regulations, i.e., to demolish a room built without building permit, and to remove and replace the roofs of the other rooms, etc. As it did not order the demolition of the entire buildings, it should not be taken in consideration

In my opinion the two courts below went astray in this case, because of the confusion as to the rights of the parties’ in the Khartoum Municipal Council, Local Order for Building Regulation and in the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In the said Order, when a notice is issued by the Council that certain buildings have become dilapidated and dangerous to life and property under rule, the person receiving the notice whether he be the owner or the occupant, has a right of appeal either to the Council or to the High Court, in order to cancel the notice on proof that the buildings are not as described. When the decision becomes final, the Council has the power to execute it, i.e., to carry out the demolition and by that it compels the occupier to vacate. It is clear that this notice or order c demolition is not to be enforced by the courts, and that no cause of action accrues by the virtue of it to the landlord against the tenant.

Under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, s. 11 (g), when the landlord requires temporary possession for execution of works, etc., in the premises, he has to comply with the provisions therein contained.

For these reasons this application is dismissed with costs.

Salah F. Hassan J. October 17, 1966: —I concur.