Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf (Mauritius)

Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf (Mauritius)

The increase in rent under the Second Schedule, as amended, is only payable from the date of the agreement on, or determination of, the market rent, not from the date of the landlord's request. Section 11(4) does not apply to market rent increases under the Second Schedule.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lamusse Sek Sum & Co; Respondent: Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rent Control, Statutory Interpretation, Market Rent Determination, Retrospective Rent Increases
Landlord and Tenant Law Rent Control Statutory Interpretation Market Rent Determination Retrospective Rent Increases

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lamusse Sek Sum & Co

Appellant

Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 From what date does an increase in rent under the amended Second Schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1999 (as amended by the 2005 Act) become payable?
  2. 2 Does section 11(4) of the Act require the tenant to pay the increased rent from the date of the landlord's request or from the date of agreement/determination of market rent?

Ratio Decidendi

The increase in rent under the Second Schedule, as amended, is only payable from the date of the agreement on, or determination of, the market rent, not from the date of the landlord's request. Section 11(4) does not apply to market rent increases under the Second Schedule.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Supreme Court set aside
  • Respondent’s action dismissed