Wakilii

Jetha v Chhagan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 312 · 1955 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the High Court of Tanganyika concerning jurisdiction under rent restriction legislation
Decision
Matter remitted to the Rent Restriction Board, Mwanza, for determination in accordance with the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951

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 held that when a lessee erects a building under a building lease, the maxim quiequid plantatur solo, solo cedit applies — the building becomes part of the land and the lessee becomes tenant of both land and building. Upon expiry of the contractual tenancy, the lessee holds over as statutory tenant under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Section 2a of the Ordinance was intended to protect licensees on house-spots, not to exclude building lease tenants from protection. The High Court lacked jurisdiction; the matter should be determined by the Rent Restriction Board.

Outcome

Matter remitted to the Rent Restriction Board, Mwanza, for determination in accordance with the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951

Facts

In April 1945, the appellant leased unimproved land in Mwanza for ten years at an annual rent of Shs. 240, covenanting to erect buildings worth at least Shs. 10,000. He erected three shops and a store in 1946. In January 1947, the respondents purchased the land and became registered owners with fee simple reversion. The lease contained an express term prohibiting removal of buildings during the lease term. In December 1953, the respondents gave notice requiring the appellant to vacate by 31 December 1954, claiming ownership of both land and buildings. The appellant responded claiming statutory tenancy under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951 from 1 January 1955. The respondents sued for possession and to collect rents. The High Court held the building was not let to the appellant and the Ordinance did not apply, granting judgment to the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether premises erected by a lessee under a building lease are 'let' to the lessee so as to fall within the definition of 'premises' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951.
  2. Whether buildings erected under a building lease and used for business purposes constitute 'business premises let' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951.
  3. Whether section 2a of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, introduced by the 1954 Amendment, by implication excludes lessees who erected business premises from the protection of the Ordinance.
  4. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether it should be remitted to the Rent Restriction Board.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decree of the High Court set aside.
  • Matter remitted to the High Court with direction to remit the suit to the Rent Restriction Board, Mwanza, for determination under section 32(3) of the Ordinance.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the High Court proceedings awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Building Leases — Application of quiequid plantatur solo, solo cedit
When a lessee erects a building on land held under a building lease, the maxim quiequid plantatur solo, solo cedit applies so that the building becomes part of the land, and the lessee thereupon becomes lessee of both the land and the building erected upon it.
Statutory Tenancy — Holding Over After Building Lease Expiry
Upon the determination of a contractual tenancy created by a building lease, the lessee who erected buildings on the land holds over as statutory tenant of the building under rent restriction legislation, notwithstanding that the lessee's interest in the land is extinguished.
Premises Let for Business Purposes — Determining User
Where a tenancy agreement contemplates no specific user of premises, the actual use of the premises at the time when possession is sought by the landlord must be considered in determining whether the premises are let for business purposes.
Rent Restriction — Construction of Section 2a as Applying to Licensees Only
Section 2a of the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951, which deems licensees who build dwelling-houses on land to be tenants, does not cover cases where a tenancy exists. It is intended to protect licensees against eviction and extortionate demands in cases where a landowner gives licence to occupy a house-spot on which the licensee erects a house of semi-permanent construction, and does not by implication exclude building lease tenants from the protection of the Ordinance.
Rent Restriction Legislation — Construction Against Common Law Background
Rent restriction legislation must be construed against the background of the general law of landlord and tenant, and whether a tenancy or some other relationship exists is a question of law to be decided on the facts proved.
Jurisdiction — High Court and Rent Restriction Board
Where premises fall within the definition of premises to which the Rent Restriction Ordinance applies, the High Court is obliged under section 32(3) to transfer proceedings to the Rent Restriction Board and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951 s.1(2)
  • Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951 s.2(1)
  • Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951 s.2a
  • Rent Restriction Ordinance 1951 s.32(3)
  • Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 1954

Cases cited (6)

  • Cole v Lejeune [1951] 2 TLR 308
  • Simper v Coombs [1948] 1 All ER 306
  • Ellis & Sons Amalgamated Properties Ltd v Sisman [1948] 1 KB 653
  • Wolfe v Hogan [1949] 2 KB 194
  • Reman v City of London Real Property Co Ltd [1921] 1 KB 49
  • Skinner v Geary [1931] 2 KB 546

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Jetha v Chhagan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1955) [1955] EACA 312 (1 January 1955)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.