19830329 TZHC Dar es Salaam

fl(c IN 'rHE 1-UGH COURT OF-_TANZAr-p:A, ~T. bAl~ -ES -SAL~AM ::.:., CIVIL APP EAL No. 35 OF. f9·s1 (ORIGINAL DSM RM'S COURT ~IVIL CASE NO. 166 OF 19~0) HOTEL INTERNATIONALE LTD •• oor.oooe•o•o••ooo•ooAPPELLANT ~ ;. ' I' • • versus , JU.,IURASHI-0- ·-.StJt;E.MAlilf,NASSER .,i>EMia • 11 o o o o o o o o., o .. o RESPOND ENT

JUDGMENT MTENGA, J.Thi~- i~ i!in ap~eai from the decision of the - f.~ l t ,:'' " · · Resident Magistrates• Court . .. at Kisuhi ~ \. - h~t'~'irt.Dar ··-~s salaam . ... - . :; in ' ·(,• · - respect of R•~• civil. cas!= No~: 1~6 of 1980~ ~he appeilant is -_.. . . ' . a tenant of certain ··pr~ITi~s~~ at .Plot i-Joii §42)157 aio~g Lindi Street ,in Dar ~~ salaam sinee 1g59. 'rhe Respondent wa~ the land- lq~d. ~fthe said p.tefuis~s up h, 19"11 wheh fne premises were aequi~ed by the Rsgisti:'a~ of Oliild1n~s uha~r the ttauild:Lhg Acqui- sid.on Adt 1.971i♦~ The Respohdebt had a witre Whont lie divorced in 1971 and she is called Rehema scud (P.Wo3) and this ek wife managed to claim for this premises .acquired by the Registrar of Buildings and.through letter EX.F dated the 3rd day of october 1972, the premises were given to her on condition that she spends the rent obtained from the premises for the use of her children and her ex husband the present respondent. I shall come back to this 'point later in my judgment. When the premises were given to PW3, the respondent/,p).aintiff applied for an order for·possession in order to run his own busi- ness. on the other hand, the appellant who is running a hotel by ~ ' the name of "Hotel International~•gave evidence to the effect that the main building of th~e hotel was not sufficient hence he rented the suit premises as an annexture to the main

building for business purposes and he is therefore a protected tenant under the Rent Restriction Act. The first question which I consider to be of paramount im- portance is whether the respondent has-any "locus standi 11 in this suite I think the answer to this question is in the negative. As rightly pointed out by Mro Kessaria, the learned Counsel for the appellant that when the premises was acquired by the Registrar of Buildings in 1971 under the nuildings Acquis_ition Act 1971, the 0 0_ 0 b O :o /2. I•/ - 2 - respondent ceased to have ownership on the premises and by then ownership moved to the Registrar of Buildings though the respond- ent was still in possession of the Title Deeds of the premises and to holq. oJ:,l'lerwise would render the whole Act No.13 of 197:( to he mean:tng\-a~~~t>-· When the Registrar of Buildings gave the pre- mises to PW3 the respondent•s ex-wife, he transfefred the owne~- ship of the premises to her and not to the respondent. Mr. Mbuya the learned Counsel for the respondent o.rgued that though EX•"F" was written to PW3 giving her the premises, the title deeds of ·the premises are with the respondent therefore the ownership of the premises is that of the respondent or in the alternative, PW3 was claiming for the premises from the Registrar ~f Buildings on behalf of the respundent because she had general pm1er of Attorney EX•"D"• As I stated earlier

that when the premises was acquired by the Registrar of Buildings, the respondent ceased to have any ownership of the premises and ownership of the premises became that of the Registrar of Buildings in spite of the fact that the respondent was in possession of the Title Deeds of the premises and when the premises was transferred to ~W3, the owner- ship of the premises became that of ~W3 in spite of the fact that the respondent is still having possession of the titlG deeds in respect thereofo The said premises were given to PW3 on 3rd october, 1972 as it is clearly shown on EX.F whereas the power of a'ttorney was given to PW3 on 6th April 1977 as it is shown on EXo D that is to say before PW3 was given power of attorney she had already gained ownership of the premises and this being the position then the respondent has no locus standi in this suit because he has no right over the suit premises.. The proper person tc bring a·: suit against the appellant is pw3. More and above, the premises in question are Commci-cial premises and both parties are in agreement that they are caught ,by the provisions.of the Rent Restriction Act Cap.479 of the Laws. in terms of Section 19 (1) (e) (ii) of the Rent Act and section 19 (2) of the said Act before a Court can issue an order for recovery of possession of such premises, the Court must be satis~ fied that reasonable alternative accomodation

for a tenant is ' available, that it is reasonable to make such an order ill1d that unless such an order is made, greater hardship would be caused to the landlord, It has been established in evidence that there is non availabi.lity of reasonable alternative accommodation. _Also •a•eoo/3 -----·· ~ ..... ow .L::; c1 .LC,;/ aJ. entity though the Sole share holders are the respondent and his ex wife PWJ it i~ therefure wrong to c;cnclude that unless an order for possession is made.greater hardship would be caused to the land- lord. In conclusio~ therefore, I find it t~at the order of eviction made by Resident Magistrate•s Court in the circumstances was clearly invalid and I allow the appeal and set aside the order of eviction made by the Resident Magistrate's Court pl~s costs to Qe I paid to the appellant. j .. ;.. , CoG,, MTENGA

JUDGE 29/3/83 __ .. :· De~J?~.r,ed ~i:~. _ChambEi!J'S i_n.: th~ :.Pres~nce ,o.(i~• Kessa~ia fo:r; tne c;1pp~1i?nt and .Mr. MbuY,c;t. cc;,u.nsel .,f,or.•.the Re.spondent th.is. 29tb. •• !_(. '• ~ . , • '. •. "l ! • .J •• ~ ;•• • -'- , • • • .... day of March.,. t: . ,. • '" 1983. p .l., .... 1· ·•.. / •i'' C.G. MTENGA

JUDGE i9/3/8.3 . : .-. _;. ' . '. .. '1