MOHAMMED ABDEL LATIF ALI AMMAR, Appellant-Defendant v. SATII MOHAMMED HASSAN, Respondent-Plaintiff
Civil Procedure-Costs-Apportionment of between litigants .
Land Law-Building situated on land of another-Ejection-Rights of owner at
building to remove the building or receive rents
Where a party has been permitted to put up a building on the land of
another, who subsequently ejects him, the first party is entitled to remove
his building, .and is also entitled to an account of rents received after eject-
ment.
Mohammed Abdel Latif Ali Ammar v. Imperial Ottoman Bank HC-
CS-129-1920 followed.
Al?peal
December 11, 1923. Dun C.J.: The rights of the parties in this
case were that, when the respondent was' turned out of the hosh by
the appellant, the respondent. was entitled to take away his two rooms:
in coming to this conclusion I am following the judgement of Judge
Peacock in Mohammed Abdel Latif Ali Ammar v. Imperial Ottoman
* Court: Dun C.J., Williamson and Bell II.
Bank,l in which the present appellant sued the Imperial Ottoman Bank
for compensation for his buildings in the same hosh: I only wish to
add that I believe this to be in accordance with native custom.
The appellant, having taken possession of these two rooms and
received the rents for them, must account for the rents.
The court will therefore declare that, on being ejected, the re-
spondent was entitled to remove the two rooms in question, and is en-
titled to an' account of the rents received by the appellant in respect
of them, subject to deduction of the sum of PT.30 per month, being the
amount of the ground rent formerly paid by the respondent to the ap-
pellant, and the case is remitt~d to the District Court to take such
account: the appellant is to be at liberty to prove, if he can, that part
of the sums received by him were received for other purposes than as
rent for these two rooms.
The appellant must pay the costs of the hearing in the District
Court including the court fees and advocate's costs; according to the
scale, and he will also pay half· the costs of the appeal. to the High
Court: there will be no order as to the costs in this court.
The reason for this order as to costs is that the original claim was
wrongly framed. \ The main point in dispute in the District· Court
and one of the main points in the High Court was whether the rooms
belonged to the respondent or not, and 'on this point the respondent
was successful in both courts; the appellant has only been successful
on the other, and in this suit the less important point was how the
rights of the parties should be determined, and he admits that he was
liable to some extent.
I would only add that I hope, for their own sakes, the parties will
arrive at some agreement as to amount of. the rents to be accounted
for: the/Court understands that no difficulty will arise as to the removal
of t11/ buildings. .
Williamson J.: I agree.
Bell J.: I agree.
Order accordingly