.• C.urtlBennett, C.J. &~d WaTr.gerdat., D,J.

r.D~. due te hi.. O. Juno 2O~h. 1944 plaintiff wr.to dof.ndant that
d.fendant .u.~ .urrendor p ••• e •• i.n ef tho h.u.e by June 3Oth~ 1944.
D.f.ndaD~ repli.d by le~ter .n Jun. 23rd. 1944 that h. w.uld c.Dtinue t.
eccupy tbe beu •• and w.uld hand it .Ter .nly, up •• n:pi rati en .f tbo C.D-
tr.c~. WoaDwhile, defendan~ agre.d witb .n.'Tbe.charide., whe wi.h.d t •
•• TO iate tbo beu •••• plaintifft. t.Dant, that he w.uld vacate the b.u.o.
Defondan~ did nei leave tbe h.u.e, hew.ver, until th. beginning .f Oct-
.bor 1944 and OTO. in Octeber wrote that it ..iaa n.~ hi. int.nti.a t •• Ta-
cuat. ~b. beu.e until the expi ra,ti en .f hi. centract. Defendant tendored

:-rent. fer July ~hreugh December; plaintiff accepted th •• e f.r July thro~ib
Sep~ •• ber, but return.d the .ther. and .n Oct.b.r 10th. n.tifi.d def.n-
dant te eTacuate. Plaintiff br.ught .uit .n Oct.ber 19th. f.r rec.verl
ef pe •• e •• i.n. At tho b.ginning .f N.v.-ber, defendant .ublet the h.u.o
te hi. cl.rk in vi.lati.n .f the term •• f the original lea •••

     Htld. (1)       D.fendant'. r.ply on June 23rd. 1944 that h. w.uld haad

.ver the h.u.e .nly up.n expiration ef the centract wa. n.t a premi.e
t. leave at the expirati.n .f the Ie ••••

(ii) Any verb.l premi.e. defend.nt m.y b.v. mad. t. plaintiff
th.t h. c.uld l •• ve: b.f.re the le.ae termin.ted were n.t bindini .n
defend.nt a. there w •• no evidence .f any con.id.r.tion there.f.

(iii) Whether a binding contract had b.en mad. between dorendant
.nd Theoch.rid •• r.r defendant to leave i. immaterial. Plaintiff w •• n.'
a party thereto er to any three-.ided centr.ct .f that nature.

(iv) Plaintifr'. l.tter er June 20th. 1944 wa. inoperative te
terminate the ten.ncy; it 1f"'1 baaed on an enti re mi .underat.nding .r hi.
leg.l pe.ition •. It erdered defendant to leave on Jun. 30th. y.t d.fend.nt
clearly had a right t. stay till July al.t. Th. re.ult i. that defendaat
held ov.r at the end ef the l ••• e.

  {v}    Def.ndant •• a holdever tenant wa •• tenant at will unle ••

_ the landl.rd acqui •• c.d in helding ever. Plaintiff'. acc.ptanc •• f the
rent f.r July t. S.ptember c.natituted l\lch acqui •• cenc •• H.wever, it i.
unn.ce •• ary te decide whether the n.w tenancy wal fr" y •• r t. y.ar which
may well have b.en the ca.e b.ceu •• under the eriginal 1 •••• rellt wa.
paid monthly or from m.nth te m.nth b.cause in either Case plaintiff

had n. right t. evict defend.nt at the d.te or hi. instituti.n .f the
.uit.

('vi) All the term. and preY! S1 ons of' the ori ginal lea.o were
carried .ver t. the new tenancy; but even though defend.nt'. renting
of the premises t. his clerk w.s a breach .f the terms .r the .riginal
lea.e, plaintiff o.nnet avail hi.self er such breach bec.use it did
n.t arise until .fter pl.iotiff in.tituted the suit.

(Vii) All the term. and provisiens .r the Rent and Rec.very af
P •• aesaien .tc. Ordinance 1943 c.ntinue t. apply t. the new tenancy
after expir.tion .f the original lease.

Rent .nd Rec.v~ry .f P.s •••• i.n " Premise. Restricti.n Ord-
inanc. 1943, a •• 6A .nd 12(1).

Revisi.n

  August 4, 1945. Bennett, C.J. Thi. is an applicati.n fer

the reTi.i.n or the decree or the High C.urt, Khart.um, c.nfirming a
decree .f tho Kh.rt.um Di.trict C.urt in a suii jn which the plaintiff
claimed .n ord.r r.r the r.cOv.ry of p •••••• i.n or H.use No. 29 Block 6
c. E. Khart.um City.

,lb. b.u •• ·iil.iq'q •• t.i.o wa. ha •• d t.. th. d.f.odut. b;r ph.iot.i ft' •
pr.dec •••• r in tit.l. in July 1938 f.r a p.ri.d,.f.fi~e iears, expiriDg
.n July 31.1.. 1943 with t.he further pr.vi.i.n that if neith.r party ne~
ified t.he .th.r io writ.ing twa m.nt~. ber.r. the"xpirati.o .t the .aid
t..rm .f hi. int.enti.n t. the c.ntrary the lea.e wa. t. be c.nsidered

a. having been ren.wed f.r a further term .f .ne y.ar. The plaintitf

acquired the premi.e. by purcha.e in 1942 and thereafter ~he defeodaD~

paid t. him the rent due unde~ the h.... On june 20th. 1944, tbe
plaintiff wr.te t. the defendant repeating a previ.u. reque.t that a.
t.he latter had r.c.ver.d p •••••• i.n .f .n.ther h.u •• bel.nginl t. hi.
and a. h., the plaint.iff, had alr.ady r.nt.d the h.u •• her. in qu •• ti.n
t. Mr. J.hn Th •• cbarid •• a. frem July lat.. 1944, the d.f.n~ant .h.uld
h.nd .v.r p •••••• i.n .f ih. h.u.e h.r. in que.ti.n i. the plaintitf .0
.r b.rere June 30th. 1944, and thr •• t.oing thai if this r.que.t ;wa.

n.t c •••• pli.d with h. w.uld hud .v.r the matter t. hi. ad~.cateifer

n.c •••• ry acti.n. It i. t. b. remarked th.t .t the date .t that l.tt.r,
the d.fend.nt had n.t in fact rec.ver·ed p •• ae.si.n .f the .th.r haus.
(h.reinafter referred to as Mr. Flavel' .• hause) n.r bad the ,laintiff
agr •• d •• be alleged, t. let the h.u.e b.r. in qu •• ti.n (h.r.inafter
referr.d t. as the plainti ft'. h~u •• ) T. ),lr. J.hn The.charid... Under
the lea •• , the defend.nt wa •• nti tIed t. retain p •••• aai on .f -the, pla-
intiff'. h.u.e at .ny rat. until July 31.1.. 1944, and wa •• 1 •• there-
aft.r .ntitled t. the pr.t.cti.n .f the Rent and Rec.v.ry .f P •••• a.ien
Re.tricti.n Ordin.nc. 1943. Th. plaintiff'.-l.tt.r .f Jun. 30th. 1944
wa. th.r.f.r •• b.ut a. inaccurat. in fact ud as unjustified in it.
l.g.l preten.i.ns •• it v.ry w.ll c.uld b ••

In reply, the d.r.nd.nt, .n Jun. 23rd. 1944, wr.t. that h •.•• uld
c.ntinu. t •• ccupy th •. h.u •• and that h. c.uld hand it .v.r .nly up.n
expirati.n .f the c.ntr.ct. It i. imp.rtant t. n.t. in pa •• ing that
that lett.r did n.t in any •• n.e imp.rt a prami Be t. leav •.• t the
expir.ti_.n .f the c.ntract and that the c.ntr.ct in qu •• ti.n mu.t haye
be.n the le •• e .b.ve ref.rred 1... On JUDe 26th. the plaintiff wr.te
again and •• id that h. wa. a.t.ni'.hed at the defendant'. lett.r .f 23rd.
a. n. c.otrlct ·.t le •• e h.d .v.r b •• n .igned betw.en them .nd that the
defend.ot h.d alw.y. refu •• d t •• ign a c.ntract .nd r.p •• ted hi. thr.at
t. take l.gal pr.c.eding ••. Thi. l.tt.r b.tray.d a cempl.t. and a.t.oi-
.hing mi.und.r.t.nding .f the leg.l p •• iti.n by the plaintiff. Th~ pla-
intiff'. pr.d.c •••• r. in title had c.ntracted with the d.tendant a. weil
as .n b.half .f th.ir :a •• ig-o. a •• n th.ir .wn b.half and the plaintift
was as b.und by t,he t.erm •• f the leas. t. t.h. d.fendant a. ~he7 were. ,:\
Even if that had n.t been the ca •• and the d.r.ndant had b •• n ,al;r •
t.nant fr ••• ,nth t. m.nth, the plaintiff w.uld h.v. had ne right ~,

put .n end t. the tenancy by t.n day. natice •• h. purp.rt.d t. d. b;r

hi •• ri gi nal l~tt.r~Gf ~un. 20th. 1944.

At the trial, the plaintiff .ought to pr.Te a Terbal promise by the
defendant t. giTe up p.s.e •• ion ef the plaintiff'. bouse a •• oon a. he
.eTed into Mr. FlaTel's bouse. So far a. this wa. a promise by the def-
ondant te the plaintiff it depend. entirely on the eTidence ef the plai-
ntiff who .aid at the trial that the promise "as made before he wrote tbe
letter of June 20th. 1944, and that he did not .enti.n th, promise in

that letter because h. thought it unnecessary. In.y opini.n, that un-
supp.rted statMent cannot be beli end. HaTi ng regard to the unjusti fi ed
a.sertions of lay and fact which the plaintiff did mak. in that letter,

I oannot. beli eTe l' er one moment that if the plainti ff really thought

that he had receiTed a promi.e fro:n the defendant, a. he say., he weuld
not haTe put it in the ferefront of the htter. Even if the promi.e were
.ad., heweTer, there wa. no evidence ef any consideration for that pr __ i.e
•• Ting from the plaintiff to the defendant and it was theref.re in any
eTent net binding .n the defendant in law.

That there was a good detil of disCUISigll about the~Tacation .f tb.
plaintiff'. h.ua. by the defendiint ~s .oon a. he m.Ted t. Mr. naTel'.
house in .rder to all." Mr. John Theo~h.ride8 t. e.oupy the fermer h.u.e
i. char from the evidence of' the defendant himself, .f Mr. John Theecha-
ride. and of Mr. Ce.ti The.charirlee. Who·t.her or not a binding cClntract

t. that effect "u entered inte batween the.defend~nt and Mr. John Th.e-

chari de. was net an i •• ue in the Di stri ct Court and is not therefore a
matter up en which I .ught t. expreSi any decided .pinion .Ten if~1 had
f.rmed .ne, but eTen if such. c.ntract was m~d&, the plaintiff cannet
t.ke any adTantage there.f as there vas no eTidence vhataeeTer that h.
vaa a party thereto or to Mny tnree-sided contr':ct .r that natur ••

On the expiratien .f the defendant'. lease he remeined in the pla-
inti ff' a house. About ti • ., b.ginning .f Oct.ber, it app.ars that h. m.Ted
intI Mr. FlaTel'. h.uae and en October lOth, 1944, the plaintiff wret.

him with reference t. the preTi.u. c.rrespondence .nd aaying that he va.
i.nfomed 'h&t. .t.he defendant had m.Ted to Mr. FlaTel'. h.use vi thout hand-
ing oyer the keys t. plaintiff a. he had premised and warning the defendant
that if by Oct.ber 12th. the defendant had net handed .Ter the key. and
paid the eut"tanding rent. f.r m.nth •• f July, August September and Oet.ber
1944, h. w.uld .tar' hgal pr.o.edings. It. i. perhaps typical of the pla-
intiff muddl.d .ttitud •• f mind that he .h.uld in the sam. br.ath demand
rent f.r the wh.le m.nth .f Oct.ber and al •• p •••••• i.n .n Oct.ber 12th.

On the sam. day th. defendant. replied encle.ing two chequ •• , .aoh f.r

LEo ISs b.ini t.h. rent fer the tv. quart.rs, July i. S.ptember and Oct.b.r
'~. D.c •• ber re.pect! .•.• ly and stati ngl

'fl hu'." enoe .or. t. inform y.u that it i, n.t my int,lltion t.o eTacu.t..
:renr h.n.o untU at 1 ••• 1. .uch time when my c.ntract. expire. and ill vhi.b.

Oa •• I .ball ai .•.• yon Ilotice .f my intention t. de a •• r .therwi.e. Tbi.
b.ini t.he o •• e 1 de net ••• in what yay further corre.p.ndence betve.n you

The tenancy fer an indefi ni te time alleged by the plainti ff depends
up en the alleged netice .f determinatien ef the tenancy centained in the
plaintiff's letter .f June 20th. 1944. That letter was ba.ed up.n an
entire miscencepti.n af the legal p.sition and was quite in,per.tive.

In the result, the defeudant held .ver aL th~ end er his lease. Th.
learned High Ceurt Judge held in accerdauce with En~lish law that the

   defendant thereafter became a tenant frem y~.r te year and disagreed eD        e

this peint with the learned District Judge whe th,ught that after the ex-
pir.tien ef the lease the ~efendant became & tenant frem menth te menth.

Ia erder that a helding ever by a teilant aheuld be cenverted inte anything
etber tha. a tenancy at ,..ill, the landlerd muat have •• quieaced and I tbill·.
~e did ae by hia acceptance er rent rer the mentba .r July, Au~ust and
September. I have already stated my reasaos fer disagreeing ,..ith the

view ef the learned Diatrict Judge that the defendant bad agreed te iive

up pe •• e •• ieD whea he meyed te hia ne,.. heuae, and in the abaeDce.er aDY
·au~h a,ecial agreemeDt, tbe heldiDg ever by tbe defendaDt and tbe aub-

aequeDt acceptaace er rent by the vi.intiff eperated, iD my apinien,
te create a De,.. tenancy.

Whether that tenaDey ,...~ fr m ye~r ta year er, a. I ~ inolined

te think may well bave been the case where rent under the ariginal lease
,..as paid manthly, a ~enaDcy frsm m.nth ta manth, it is nat necessary

far us ta decide, because whateYer the nature er that tenancy, all the
terms er the arigiDal lease were, eltcept in .a far as ally such term ar
canditian i. incansistent with suoh a tenancy, imparted inte the ne,..
tenancy .p;reement. The .riginal lease cantained a caYenant by the def-
endant that he wauld nat sub-let witheut the previeus written cansent .f
the landl~rd. Such. cavenant ~8 just as .pplicable ta the tenancy
created after the expiratian af the lease a. it was ta the lease itself
ond was therefore itnparted inta the IIgreement governing that tenancy. On
the evidence bel are the learned District Judge, I thin~ that it ,..as apen
ta him ta find that the defendant's arrangement with hi. clerk eaDstituted
a sub-letting af the plaintiff's hause.

Nevertheless, it is nat apen t. the plaintiff ta av.il himself of
the breach af the cavenaot canstituted thereby in these proceedings for
the simple reMsen that the alleged sub-letting in question taak place
after the date of the institutian er the suit. At the date ar the io-
stitutiell af the suit, there was na graund upen which the plaintiff w ••. .:
entitled ta reeaYer passessian af his hause. The defendant at that date
h.d cammitted na breach af his tenancy agreement - the pl.intiff h.d
given na natice ta 'luit which wauld bring that agreement- ta end. EYen
if the plaintiff had praYed. pramise by the defendant te vacate the
premises when he remayed ta Mr. FlaYel's hause, and in my apinian he did
nat, the defend.nt ,..auld nat be debarred tbereby fram the pratectiaD
afferded by the Rent and Recavery ef Pa •• es~en Restrictien OrdiDaDce.

In my apinien, there fare, this application should be allawed .nd
the suit shauld be dismissed.

I thiDk that the cuts shauld falln the event and that the pla-
inti ff must pay the defendant' 8 casts iOn thi s . -:aurt, in the High Caurt
.nd iQ the Diatrict Ceurt.

During the argu.ent en appeal, it appeared that there exist •• eme
daubt .s ta whether a lousee ar te:l&nt fer yea ••• ·.r ather fixed perieds

Th.t the legi.l.tur. aever intead.d that the erdiaa •• e .heuld
bave aueh a : re.tri eted appli cati en. i ••• pp.reat frem the te~. et .-i&b-