Barot v Valji and Sons (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1955)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's order directing a retroactive tenancy from 24th December 1954 was ultra vires and contrary to sections 10 and 11(2) of the Ordinance. The magistrate failed to determine whether the rear premises were a shop within the meaning of the Ordinance. The magistrate erred in applying an objective market rent test rather than the subjective test of what is right and fair. The magistrate misconceived the assessor's functions by treating the assessor as a jury on questions of reasonableness which the court must decide. The matter was remitted for retrial.
Outcome
Matter remitted to lower court for retrial in accordance with proper application of the Ordinance and Rules
Facts
A tenant carrying on business as a shoemaker leased premises comprising a shop on Bazaar Road and rear premises on Bazaar Lane (described as a shop but registered and used as a store) from a landlord who was a 58-year-old piece-goods hawker also operating a retail provision shop adjacent to the store. The landlord determined the lease, citing advancing age, uncertainty of hawker's licence renewal, and desire to open a piece-goods shop in the leased premises. The tenant applied under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954 for a new tenancy. The magistrate granted a tenancy of both premises from 24th December 1954 to 31st May 1955 at Sh. 1,350 monthly, and continued tenancy of the Bazaar Road shop until 23rd December 1956 at Sh. 900 monthly. The landlord appealed except as to refusal of tenancy of the store. The tenant cross-appealed against refusal of store tenancy coterminous with the shop and against the rent fixed.
Issues
- Whether the magistrate had power to make an order directing a retroactive tenancy from 24th December 1954.
- Whether the rear premises in Bazaar Lane were a shop within the meaning of the Ordinance.
- Whether the magistrate applied the correct test in assessing rent.
- Whether the magistrate properly exercised his functions in relation to the assessor's role.
- Whether the magistrate properly considered the personal circumstances of the landlord.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs.
- Matter remitted for retrial.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954 s.10
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954 s.11(2)
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules, 1954 r.11
- Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules, 1954 r.14
Cases cited (1)
- John Kay Ltd v Kay and Another [1952] 1 All ER 813 (CA)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.