Wakilii

Parmar v Kapoor and Another (Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 325 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Central Rent Control Board, Nairobi
Decision
Respondents retained possession of premises; eviction order refused

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

Held that the landlord had no grounds for eviction where the tenant sub-let part of premises in 1948 without consent. Section 16(1)(i) of the 1949 Ordinance only applies to sub-letting after 6 September 1949. The sub-letting in 1948 was governed by the 1940 Ordinance which did not prohibit sub-letting of part of premises where the remainder was not already sub-let. Section 35 makes clear the 1949 Ordinance is not retrospective. Additionally, no agreement not to sub-let existed where the tenant's signed footnote contradicted the main clause.

Outcome

Respondents retained possession of premises; eviction order refused

Facts

The appellant landlord sought to evict the first respondent tenant and his sub-tenants for sub-letting part of leased premises without written consent. A written tenancy agreement in English contained a clause prohibiting sub-letting without the landlord's prior written consent. However, the first respondent appended a contemporaneous signed footnote in Landi stating he could sub-let to anybody and did not agree to the contents of the agreement as he did not know English. The Central Rent Control Board found there was no agreed condition against sub-letting. The Board also found that in 1948 the first respondent had sub-let a part but not the whole of the premises without the appellant's consent, the remainder not being already sub-let. The appellant appealed the Board's refusal to order eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant landlord had a valid ground for eviction under section 16(1)(i) of the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 where the sub-letting occurred in 1948 before the Ordinance came into force.
  2. Whether there was an agreement between landlord and tenant not to sub-let without written consent where the tenant appended a signed footnote in Landi contradicting the English language clause.
  3. Whether the sub-letting of part of leased premises in 1948 without landlord's consent, where the remainder was not already sub-let, constituted grounds for eviction under the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1940.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents here and below.
  • Costs below fixed at Sh. 200.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Retrospectivity — Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 — Non-Retrospective Operation
The provisions of the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 are not retrospective. Section 35 makes clear that the Ordinance of 1940 is deemed to have continued in force until 6 September 1949 when the 1949 Ordinance came into effect. Sub-letting occurring before the commencement of the 1949 Ordinance is governed by the provisions of the 1940 Ordinance.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Sub-letting — Grounds for Eviction under 1949 Ordinance
Section 16(1)(i) of the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 makes it a ground for eviction to sub-let the whole or part of leased premises without the landlord's consent after commencement of the Ordinance on 6 September 1949. Section 28 prohibits a tenant from sub-letting the whole or part of premises even in the absence of any covenant to that effect, subject to certain exceptions. These provisions do not apply to sub-letting that occurred before 6 September 1949.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Sub-letting under 1940 Ordinance — Partial Sub-letting
The Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1940 contained no section corresponding to section 28 of the 1949 Ordinance prohibiting sub-letting in the absence of a covenant. Section 8(1)(h) of the 1940 Ordinance, which corresponds to section 16(1)(i) of the 1949 Ordinance, does not cover a case of sub-letting of part of leased premises where the remainder is not already sub-let. In the absence of an agreement not to sub-let, such partial sub-letting in 1948 did not constitute grounds for eviction.
Contract Law — Formation — Consensus ad Idem — Contradictory Signed Footnote
Where a written agreement contains a clause in one language but a signatory contemporaneously appends a signed footnote in another language expressly contradicting that clause and stating non-agreement to its contents, the contrary intention is manifestly apparent and there is no agreement on that term. The doctrine that in written instruments the earlier of two conflicting clauses prevails is inapplicable where the contrary intention of one signatory is manifest.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 s.16(1)(i)
  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 s.28
  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949 s.35
  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1940 s.8(1)(h)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Parmar v Kapoor and Another (Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1950) [1951] EACA 325 (1 January 1951)
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.