The National Supreme Court

Civil Circuit

President

 Hon Justice: ElAmin Eltayeb ElBasheer           Supreme Court Judge

Member

 Hon Justice:  Sana Mohamed Ahmed                Supreme Court Judge

Member

 Hon Justice:  Ali ElAmin ElTayeb Yousif         Supreme Court Judge

Before Judges :

Between :

Mohi Elddin Elfadil Abdel Gadir     Appellant

V

Awad Mohamed Osman Khamees     Respondent       

No . S c / CA /913/2019

Buildings Rent Act 1991 Article (7)  

    The increase embodied in the contract –  its effect – claim of it does not need pre – notification

The Principle :

    The increase in rent embodied in the contract at  specific time does not need the lessor to notify the lessee before lifting the case unless the contract expressly  provides for that .

Note

     Plantiff claimed that he granted rent of his apartment to defendant for a monthly rent of  1.190 pounds will an annual increase of %10 and that defendant failed to pay three month increase where upon the Court ordered evictions and payment  the of costs and advocate fees of 5000 pounds .

   Appellant bases his appeal on the following :

1. Respondent  did not notify him of the increase or claim it and despite that he paid it in full .
2. The increase violated Article (7) Buildings Rent Act which fixes the increase or % 6 maximum .
3. The advocate fees were not originally appointed and no court fees were levied on it .

       Respondent advocate respect as follows :

1. The contract fixed the annual increase and appellant admits paying it .
2. No reliance can be laid in the Act which is overrides by the contract .
3. The advocate fees is a matter within the discretion of the court .

     For a disposal of the appeal we say that the non-notification of appellant of the increase does not relieve him of eviction of the contract fixes a certain rate at a fixed date . Notification can may avail it at were expressly required by the contract according to s.11 (1)(a) of the Buildings Rent Act of 1991 . The argument that the vent and the increase were actually paid is true rent that again does not relieve of evication since payment took place after institution of the suit .

    The argument that the contractual increase exceeds the rate fixed by s.7 of the Act is futile since it is know that any increase embodied in the contract after the expiry of the tint year is treated as starderd   rent .(Look for example Sc/CA/135 1991 SLJ 2000- Hyder Hamed Elnil V. Elbadry Zaki Gadalla) .

       As for the advocate fees planting claimed the fees without fixing a definite sum . The court relied upon its power under s.111(2) of the CPA/1983 in which is unlimited even to any agreement between the parties themselves (look SC/CA/206/1988 SLJ 1992) on condition that it does not exceed the fees agreed upon that despite the fact that respondents advocate started that no agreement was reached as to the fees the repsrertative of respondent stated on p.24 of the record that the fees agreed upon were 3000 pounds which means that agreement was reched later . Thereby we confirm the decision of the court of Apeal for evication and costs and for the Advocate fees of 3000 pounds provided court costs on this sum are collected .

• Ali El Amin El Tayeb Yousif

Supreme Court Judge

21.9.2020

- Sanaa Mohamed Ahmed ElHillu

Supreme Court Judge

23.9.2020

- El Amin El Tayeb El Besheer

Supreme Court Judge

26.9.2020

Final order :

1. Decision  is confirmed .
2. Application dismissed .

El Amin El Tayeb El Besheer

Supreme Court Judge

26.9.2020