Wakilii

Premchand and Others v Gomes and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1953)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 6 · 1956 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Central Rent Control Board ordering vacant possession of premises
Decision
Order of the Central Rent Control Board for vacant possession upheld; appellants to give vacant possession to respondents

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 a landlord is entitled to possession of the whole premises against both head-tenant and sub-tenants where part of the premises was sublet after 1st December 1941, the remainder having been previously sublet, subject to consideration of reasonableness under section 16(2). Applications to the Rent Control Board by societies may be presented by persons having the authority of the body without all legal title-holders being joined. The Board properly considered reasonableness and did not misdirect itself in taking into account the Society's requirements.

Outcome

Order of the Central Rent Control Board for vacant possession upheld; appellants to give vacant possession to respondents

Facts

In 1933, the Nairobi Tailors' Society (later Nairobi Goan Tailors' Society) rented premises on Plot No. 1418/36, Chambers Road, Nairobi, consisting of ten rooms, to Shah Bharmal and Brothers (head-tenants). Between 1933 and 1948, the head-tenants sublet all ten rooms to various sub-tenants (the appellants): eight rooms before 1st December 1941 and two rooms in 1948. There was no covenant against subletting. The head-tenants were no longer in personal occupation. On 28th February 1952, the respondents (trustees of the Society) served notice to quit and applied to the Central Rent Control Board for possession on grounds that the head-tenants had unlawfully sublet the whole premises, that rent was in arrear, and that the premises were reasonably required by Society members. The Board ordered vacant possession. The head-tenants did not appeal. The sub-tenants appealed, challenging the respondents' title, the applicability of the Ordinance to pre-1941 sub-tenancies, and the Board's consideration of reasonableness.

Issues

  1. Whether the widow of a deceased appellant could be joined as appellant after the death of the third appellant subsequent to the Board's order.
  2. Whether the named respondents (trustees) had proper title to bring the application before the Rent Control Board on behalf of the Nairobi Goan Tailors' Society.
  3. Whether sub-tenancies created before 1st December 1941 are protected under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 when part of the premises was sublet after that date.
  4. Whether the landlord is entitled to possession of the whole premises against all sub-tenants when part was sublet after the operative date, the remainder having been previously sublet.
  5. Whether the Board was required to consider reasonableness under section 16(2) when making an order under the option clause in section 16(1)(i).
  6. Whether the Board misdirected itself in considering the Society's requirement for the premises as a factor in assessing reasonableness.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.
  • Order of the Central Rent Control Board for vacant possession of the premises to stand.

Rules and key headnotes

Rent Control Board — Informal Proceedings — Title of Applicants — Society or Body of Persons
Applications to a Rent Control Board exercising judicial functions informally do not require any prescribed form, and where the applicant is a society or similar body, the application may be presented by any person or persons having the formal authority of the body's members, irrespective of whether legal or equitable title is vested in those persons.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Subletting After Operative Date — Entitlement to Possession of Whole Premises
Under section 16(1)(i) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, where a tenant sublets part of premises after 1st December 1941, the remainder being already sublet (whether before or after that date), the landlord is entitled to an order for possession of the whole premises against both the head-tenant and all sub-tenants, subject to consideration of reasonableness under section 16(2).
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Option Clause — Reasonableness Requirement
Where a landlord exercises the option under section 16(1)(i) to obtain an order against sub-tenants (the occupiers), the landlord's right is subject to consideration of reasonableness under section 16(2) as affecting matters personal between the landlord and the occupier, notwithstanding that the landlord is entitled to possession against the head-tenant.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Reasonableness — Factors for Consideration
In judging the question of reasonableness under section 16(2), a Rent Control Board has the widest discretion to consider every factor and circumstance likely to be affected by the making of the order, including the convenience and requirements of members of a landlord society, even where such requirements would not suffice as a ground for possession under section 16(1)(e)(i).
Rent Control Board — Reasonableness — Appellate Review — Question of Fact
The question of reasonableness is one for the Rent Control Board as a finding of fact, and an appellate court will not interfere with such finding unless there is an error in law.
Appeals — Death of Party Pending Appeal — Joinder of Successor — Rent Restriction
Where a tenant dies after a Rent Control Board order but before determination of an appeal, the proviso to section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance holds the Board's determination in abeyance pending the appeal decision, and the deceased tenant's widow or family member falling within the definition of 'tenant' may be joined as appellant.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16(1)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16(1)(i)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16(1)(e)(i)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16(2)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.7
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.2

Cases cited (7)

  • Sherrin v Brand [1956] 1 CA 194
  • Francis Jackson Developments Ltd v Hall [1951] 2 KB 488
  • Ismail Mohammed Chogley v Jagat Singh Bains (1955) 22 EACA 27
  • McIntyre v Hardcastle [1948] 1 AER 696
  • Shariff Adarus Bin Hussein Sagaaf v Akberali Karim Khaku (1955) 22 EACA 344
  • Coplans v King [1947] 2 AER 393
  • Bhagwanji Premchand v J. M. Gomes (1956) 23 EACA 9

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Premchand and Others v Gomes and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1953) [1956] EACA 6 (1 January 1956)
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.