19860912 TZHC Dar es Salaam

c1v11 i.PJ?i;_;'.L ~-to~ i ·( oF-1982 (or\~½ia1 1C:Lsutu n.11. civi1 Case No 1 8l ef 1979) l: .ALIBE!AI BI-IAJNJI ) 2: MRS. llJT:JRBANU T-\ J. TI-L ) ••••••••••• • •• • • , • a • • , • , • • APPELIJiUT3 Versus HASH1rvr ABDULLit :-LIV.lOH B,\HROON ••••••••••••••••• RESPONDilliT I _!AP GANO, J_._ ·-: -'The ·appellants .1\.libl1ai Bhanf and Nu.rba~ M1 tha have been joint+tenants of the respondent Hasb~n A~dulla Haroon Baharoon in certain premises situated at Uhuru. Street 1n Dar es Salaam for years. On 19/12/79 the respondent o'bta 1ned an order ei:-parte from t~e-Resident Hngistrote 1 s Coiu-t at K1 s\.l.tl,1. for possession of the premises, upon a clt1±zn that he 1i\1w:ide~ to ~n,ewuo-t foe- premises in campli,mce wLhl1 the r~quirements of-the c1 ty Counotl, The order that the let~rned magistrate granted did not include the requ1rement that the respondent should g 1ve an undertak¼ thnt the .· appellants would be g¾-en cm opportuniw of renewing the 1r teimnoy after completion of the reconstru.ct1 on. ~e appellants are diss.:.:.- tisf1ed~ with the dec 5-sion, hence this appeal, Xhe matters to be dealt with are fourfold, -It is pc.'1 tently clec:1· tk:t the-respondent sought ·possession under section l9(1)(f) of the Rent Rcstr1ction Act, 19~2, That prov\sion rends that; .J ;'No order or- judgment for reeovexy of possession of l'\YJY p:...'emises to wh 1 ch this Aot appl 1 es, or

for the ejectmont of n tenant therefrom, sboll be m2cfo or given unless the premises are reasonably required for .. tbo purposes of the e:x:ecut1 on of the s1x.'1tutory dut\3s or powers of a looal authority statutory- or undertnk\1g, or for aey purpose-vro 1 ch, 1n- the. op 1nj_on of the court, is in-the pubf 1o 1nterest, in which case tho court ~1].. 1ncl~de ¾ arij ejeounent order for such purpose-an order requiring any landlord or other person to grant to the te:nnnt n - new tenancy of aey new reconstructed or rebuilt premises or pii:rt thereof on such te:rms ns-mny be reasonably oqu:i-vnlent to the old tcn::mcy and fix~ a date for the complot:Lon of such p~cmises and for their occup::. tion by the ten.ant and ¾lpos;ng such rensonnbie conditions ns the court .may, th ink necessary, 11 2/ ••• ,'.~ It 1s trlle - tlin t Eefore the. court ninkes nn Ordeir for possess 1on ,mder• the above-provision it must be satisf:i-cd~thnt it is ;reasonable to do so 1n the ciro~stances. -Thnt is o.n overriding requirement o.nd that 1 s cle8r from sub-seotioR (2) of thllt r.;eotion which rcads-thnt1 11 in :mny ccse o.r\::j_ng under subseot 1on-(l), no order for the recovery of possession of pr~ises shell be mnde W.2..~ the oourt is sntis£ 1ed by or on behnl:f-of~the landlord that hav¼ regC:rd to c1ll tho o1 ro\.Ullstanoes of the case it j_s re.:\son.-'1 ble to make_ fJUOh an order •.• , •••• ,.,

,i Quite oleo.rly, the onus-of proof 1ios on the J.ondlord, He must show that nt the t¾ie of the h~nrixig the prer.~ises nre rensonabl;y' requi:red for that purpose and tho. t it is reasonn ble for che eourt to make the order, the In 1 nstont cnse the tr1o.l mog1 strote mnde no referenee at oll to thnt point. 1 t 1s now established th.~t the trio.1 court does not have to make a:x:J;)I'GSS reference to the question of re::,.soi1c.'1bleiicss and that an appeJ.lnte oou:rt riicy presUl1lo that-the trtnl court addressed itsel.;f to that po1 nt B\.\t there 1 s1 a quo.111' 1cntion-and I must emphasize this - b t an oppeU~te tO\l.t't mr.y- presune so only-where the evidence or. tho t po1nt has been before the tr1nl court: see -Lalji _Gqj__:::.r .Y,.,b~=½n (1969) HCD 294 and La;l,:li C Jani and.Ju19..iy:\_cJ.:_.:?: ♦ Ji.1rji Mulji (1953) ·2G--E.A,0,A--66 2.t 69. Tfie "i'i:;t;'st quest1 on·for dec:i-si·on is whether there wns ev1 dcnce before the-trial court on the issue of reasonableness, The respondent adduced affidavit ev1dence o.nd. the pnrnirc.ph5. there(\!f th.at are relevant nre 4 and 51 v 1z: "4, By n letter C:.r-. tcd 4th August, 1918 I duly 1nfonncd the dcfcndGnts of the need to re'bu 1 1a the suit prer,1 is Gs \,_ ::-.ccord.nnee w1 th the requ1 re,.. nents of the cfty Cow"'lsil of-Dnr es ·SnJ.nom. nncl :required thC'~l to ncko the su1 t-pr~ises ::wa 1la'ble to me for the

purp0ses nforesn 1d ½i u va~nnt condition bJ tho encl of October, 1978-to enable · me to undertake the proposed re-bu 1lding, 5. I hnv_e duly 9bt~/ned pc:r:m 1ss 1 on for-the pro.- posed construction f:cau the city Coune. 11 of Dnr es So.ln~:.1~· I crnve leave to refer to the wild~ Permit 2~mexed to the plnintn., Pu:t terefllJ"t this is all whc,t tfie respondent deposed before the-tr1al court: I w::mt to rebu½.d the suit-preraisos in nccordance with the requirements of the local authority; I hcve obtnined ~ pe:o::iit for the proposed reconstruct 1on; 3/ •• ,.. ... 2 - ' I t is tru.e~tht1t 'before the court me1l.:es nn order for possess1on under. . the above~provis 1011. it must be sat\s:ricd~tfiot it is rensol'.k'1ble to do so in the circumstances. That is nn overriding requirement and that 1 s cle~r from sub-seotioa (2) of thnt seot1on which rends~thntt 111 n mny onse nricj·ng under subseot 1on-(1), no order for the recovery of possess 1on of premises shnll be made J:Yllea the oourt is sat 1s£ied by pr on bchnl:f-of~the landlord that having rcgcrd to o.11 the o1rt0unsto.noas of the case it is rc::-.sono.ble to make EJUOh an order••••••••••;; Quite olearly, the oms-of proof lj·cs on the J.nndlol'<l, He m~st show that nt the t'¾ne of the hearing the premises 8.ro reasorobJ.;yo %'84Ul.red for thnt purpose and that it is recsonr1 blc for che court to make the order, 1n the 1nstnnt

case the trial m.ngistr2 te rJ.odc no reforenee at oll to thnt point, , 1 t 1s now established t~:t the trinl court does not nave to make axpr,;ss reference to the question of rc~·.soi.u.'1 blciicss and that t\ll appall.ate Gourt riiny presume that-the trlo.1 court c.ddrossod itseJ.;f to that point• Bu.t there is o. quol i:fioa_t 1 on-and 1 must empb.,s\~c tlis - that an appelJ,.ate tou.rt mv.y- presume so only -,vhere the ev:i:de:>.lCO 011 that po1nt has 'been before the tr 1nl court: see-La].ji ..9-~£..i.b:F~~ (1969) HOD 294 and Lop:l a Jani• •and Another v • • • • .....,.•. '" ....... ,.... _. 1k,rji Mulj~ (1953) ·2G ·E.A.-0.A ·66 ;;::t 09. Tfio ·first quest1 on...for dec)-sion is whether there wns ev 1 dence before the-trial court on the 1ssue of rec:sonnbleness, The respondent adduced nff 1 &w 1 t evidence and the porc.c;:rcipl:5. therec~ that are relevant are 4 and 5, v 1z: "4, By a letter Cr: tod 4th August, 1978 I duly infer.med ' the dci'cnifonts of the .need to rebu.1la the suit prer:1 iscs ¾1 r:ccordnnce w1 th the requ1 re- r.ients of the cfJGY Counsil of-Dar es-Salaam nnd requi.z-ed then to r:ic:ke the su1 t-premises nva 1l6'bl.e to me for the purpoGes nforeso. 1d 1n o vacant condition b;y the end of October, 1978-to ennble me to undertake the proposed re-bu.i1ai~, ss 5 •. I hnve duly obt~ 1ned pcnn 1 1 on for-the pro- posed construet 1on fror:i the city CounEiil

of Dnr es So.lacm~· I crove lenve to r0fer to the w 1ld ½lg Pcnn1 t Qlmexed to the pln 1ntn., Put teretly, th is is nll w11c t tfie respondent deposed before the - trial com t: 0 I v..ant to rebu.ild the suit-premises ½i nccordance with the requirements of the local authority; I hrwe ob"t.'lined n pexmit for the proposea reconstruction; 3/ .. ... ,' '1 \ ,1 - 3 - I Elsk the court to n.:ck:e .:-.n order for possess i on•· Judgment vrc.:s pnGsed on tho strength of the aff 1 dnv 1 t, u1 th respoct, I can hardly discern n:nytii1:ng in the Gbove quoted p~ragrc.phs that oon rensonnltly be sc/<1 to positively beo.r r;lntionahip to tho 1uest1 on of rensonnbleness. In the ubsence of nny such ev1dence it 1s iraposs±bie for oe to presume th,:t the learned trio.1 mngistrnte npplie<l 11:i·s nind to that point. I thus :r 1nd for the appellants on the f~st qu.est 1en, As po 1nted out nbove, the order for possession did not requi~e the respondent to~offe:r the nppollo.nts.· a now temnt,y 1n the roco:nstru.Qted preo 1 scs; Th 1 s -brings_ 110 to the second question, n..'Wlely, -whothe:r.- 1 t VVllS legally =½npera t 1-ve o,-, the part of the trial court to requ:i.ro the respotiP ndent to do so, l.!r. R.'1A:thatha, counsol for the appellants, though.ii so, On ny part I respectfully think not. Referenee should ba :r;1~t1e to the tlenr words of the st..Ttu.te.No doubt that to the extent that the

power of the court to ra~ke-suoh an order is-concerned, seot1QP 19(l)(f) ie tCTJUOhid ". in pe:ruissive ton.is. That is to soy tnnt the oourt is not bound to make such an order. And in this conneot1on X aGoept the oantent1~ ndvunoed by Mr. L~ld1a, counsel for th2 responc'l.ent, that tho Qaurt wns entitled to 1n:fe:r f1~ru the Bore f.l bsence of the appellnnts tlm t they did not wnnt a new tenancy. Accordingly, I find fo~ the respondent on this po1nt. Should I orclor n new tr\11? Thf.lt is the th 1 rd point thnt ar1 ses,. In ~eg0.:g:z..Jl9.!!.t Bc_s.t.~:c.f_o.n.,,!_c~t§., Vo1.1, 10th ed1 t 1oii, -o.t p.262,· 1 t is stated·that·where·it.±s neeessnry to set as 1de n decision on reasonobleness the-nppelln te court wi11 usually order c. new trial, -ai though it 1 t is s8t1 sfied the t it is in possession of nll the-rJ.nter 1 al fl"lcts, it iiay decide the issue 1 tself • ~\ad as Biron, J. observed 1n ~~U,:, .(t~._j_,:;r, .Y.J{~-a bave t 1 ''the law hns. been called an ass, but it s not oandatory for .its ·ndrlinistntors to wea:r -blinkers•i. I tllnk 1 have 1n ny poasess'-on mator1 al facts to enable . been rie to dispose of the natter. This c:::ise has/1n court for over seven rears nnd I·tnke judic~nl not1 ce, fron whnt hns trnnsp 1red 1n othcr-~ro~eed1%lgs in this· cese th~.t the local authority hos, since the inst:l::tL1tion of the proeeed1ngs, served on the respondent a not1

ee-of denolition 1n respeot of the su.it-prenises. I £'..11 so.t 1 sf 1 cd· thnt it 1s reasonable to tlake an order for recovery of possession, and I he.reby do. Finally 1 have .. to decide whether it is desirable rind f 1·t to postpone the do.te of possession for a period of twelve iionths, :.,s suesgested by counsel for the-nppellnnts. The-short answer to that 1s no. - iSter- seven ye1:1rs of litigation and regQrd bc½lg had to the cont 1nuously incrcGsing costs of construction it woul<l be highJ.¥ unreasonable to noke suc:1 an order., l - 4 ·- In the ~innl result this nppeo.l fnils~nnd is dimissed. As the nppellnnts htive succeeded on orn, point I order thnt they po.y only hnlf' -of the costs incurred by the res,por.dent, Delivered c:nu. <lnted 12 Septenber, 1986 Mr. Lnkha for l:?Dithntha for Appellc.nts Mr. Lnkhn :for Respondent. _i )"-.,-~\...._., . ... . :-ri .f J.. . _-::=.·::.~-------·· 'J _ •.• (D. P ,MAJilGANO) JUDGE.