fatuma a m dadajalia vs ismailjee m abdullali 1986 tzca 16 27 february 1986

fatuma a m dadajalia vs ismailjee m abdullali 1986 tzca 16 27 february 1986

The respondent was a contractual tenant on a month-to-month basis, and a notice to quit was necessary before the appellant could file an action for eviction. Section 26 of the Rent Restriction Act does not apply to contractual tenancies. There was no evidence that suitable alternative accommodation was provided to the respondent. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
fatuma a m dadajalia vs ismailjee m abdullali 1986 tzca 16 27 february 1986
Parties
Appellant: Fatuma A. M. Dada; Respondent: Ismailjee M. Abdut-Ali
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 February 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Notice to Quit, Contractual Tenancy, Statutory Tenancy, Alternative Accommodation, Eviction
Source Language
English
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Notice to Quit Contractual Tenancy Statutory Tenancy Alternative Accommodation Eviction

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatuma A. M. Dada

Appellant

Ismailjee M. Abdut-Ali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a notice to quit was necessary before filing an action for eviction against a contractual tenant
  2. 2 Whether suitable alternative accommodation was provided to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was a contractual tenant on a month-to-month basis, and a notice to quit was necessary before the appellant could file an action for eviction. Section 26 of the Rent Restriction Act does not apply to contractual tenancies. There was no evidence that suitable alternative accommodation was provided to the respondent. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent