Din v Said (Civil Case No. 359 of 1950 (Mombasa))
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
A lease for a fixed period determines automatically by effluxion of time without the necessity for notice to quit. A tenant who never personally occupied premises but sublet without the landlord's written consent in breach of sections 16(1)(i) and 28 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance cannot invoke the Ordinance's protection. The mere application for fixation of standard rent does not prevent an order for possession where multiple other grounds exist, including unlawful subletting and non-occupation. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Order for possession upheld; tenant evicted
Facts
The appellant tenant entered into two six-month lease agreements dated 11 January 1949 and 30 June 1949 for a shop and store at Sh. 80 per month, each paid in advance, with an option to renew that was not exercised. The agreements expired in December 1949. The tenant never personally occupied the premises but sublet to multiple persons (Said Mohamed, a barber, and Shadrack) without the landlord respondent's written consent, collecting rent from them. No rent was paid to the landlord from January 1950 onwards. The landlord agreed in January 1950 to let the tenant stay at Sh. 80 per month but no rent was paid. In February 1950 the landlord's advocate demanded arrears. In March and August 1950 the tenant's advocates demanded fixation of standard rent. On 19 April 1950 the landlord applied to the Rent Board for vacant possession on grounds of non-payment, lease expiry, and tenant not being in personal occupation. The Board assessed standard rent at Sh. 40 per month on 1 November 1950 and ordered ejectment on 4 November 1950.
Issues
- Whether a notice to quit was necessary to terminate a lease for a fixed period that had expired by effluxion of time.
- Whether a tenant who never occupied premises but sublet without written consent could invoke protection of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
- Whether the landlord agreed to the creation of a new contractual tenancy after expiry of the original lease agreements.
- Whether an application for fixation of standard rent prevents a court from ordering possession where other grounds exist.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Rent Restriction Ordinance s.16(1)(i)
- Rent Restriction Ordinance s.28
- Transfer of Property Act s.111(a)
Cases cited (7)
- Duxbury v Nourse (1947) C.L.Y. 2677
- Reman v City of London Rent Property Co (1921) 1 KB 49
- Morrison v Jacobs (1945) 2 AER 430
- Dun Loghaire UDC v Morgan (1921) 2 IR 404 DC
- Rhodes v Cornford (1947) 2 AER 603
- Skinner v. Geary
- Menzies and Mackay (1938) SC 74
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.