Landlord and Tenant-s-Eiectment-s-Tenanrs rights to building .material ·In
houses built by· tenant

When a tenant builds houses on the landlord's real property, and the
houses are subsequently declared unfit for habitation 'Whereupon the land-
lord orders the tenant to vacate the house, the tenant is entitled to take

. away the building materials from the house when the landlord does not ~'

                    the tenant the opportunity to repair or rebuild the house himself.                      ..

Mohammed Abdel Latif Ali Amar v. Satti Mohammed. Hassen AC-APP-
39-1925; 1 S.L.R. 230.

Public Health Ordinance 1924, s. 102.

Appeal

April 11, 1929. Bell C.J.: The respondents, Ql.!UlY' years ago,
built mud houses and paid a ground rent to the owner of the land.
The ownership of the land passed from one person to another aDd
finally came into the hands of the appellant, . In January, 1928. notice . ..
was given to. the appellant under section 102 of the Public Health Qrdi •.
':Rance 1924, stating that the buildings were unfit for' habitation- abd
prohibiting any person from using them until they· were rendered·fit
for use. The appellant replied that the necess~ repairs wouldbe
carried out. The District Commissioner replied that rrothing' but com- .
plete demolition and rebuilding would meet the case. On April 2J, .
1928 the appellant sent a notice to the respondents: "As. a result

• Court: Bell C.l., Owen and pavid-Davis 11.

of the order of the District Commissioner I give you notice that you
must vacate the house." The respondents were ejected and in May
started this case claiming £E.90, the value of their buildings as they :
stood. Subsequently they reduced their claim to £E.50. Judgement
was given that the respondents under the terms of their lease were
entitled to take away the wood and building material of the houses
they had built.

The grounds of appeal are, firstly, that there was no such right
as against the appellant in any circumstances, and, secondly that,.'
even if there was such a right, it only could be enforced if the tenants
were ejected by the landlord;

As regards the first ground of appeal there is a right of a tenant
to remove buildings on ejectment in tenancies of this kind and the
right has been recognised by the· Court of Appeal in Satti fo&ohd
Hassan VS. Mohd Abdel Latif, AC-APP-39-1925.

The argument on the second ground of appeal is that it was
not the landlord but the Government which ejected the respondents,
and that the ejectment - was due to the respondents' own fault in not
keeping the buildings in proper repair.

Now it is clear that, if the buildings could have been rendered
fit for use by repairs, it is the respondents who would have had to
do and bear the costs of the repairs; so also if the repairs had in-
volved the demolition of part of the buildings and rebuilding them, the
respondents would have been responsible to do it arid would have
been of course entitled to use their own materials. If the respondents
refused to do. the repairs, the appellant could then justly say it is
your own fault and not mine that you are ejected, and therefore
you are not entitled to take away your materials.

On the other hand, if the respondents were willing to do the
repairs, the appellant might prefer that they should not do so, and
could give them due notice to quit, but in this case the respondents
would be entitled to take away their materials. In the case before
the court the appellant might have said to the respondents, "These
buildings have got to be vacated, demolished and rebuilt; are you
willing to do it?"

The appellant did not however do this, but told the respondents
that they must leave the premises, intending to do the rebuilding
. himself. It is unnecessary to consider whether the appellant ejected