19940917 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19940917 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 17 September 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 17 September 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial magistrate was correct in finding that the respondent reasonably required the premises for his own occupation and that there was no legal requirement for alternative accommodation to be available to the appellants. The sale of the premises after judgment did not affect the respondent's right to vacant possession as the sale occurred after the judgment was delivered.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellants to vacate the suit premises within 3 months from 30/3/1984
02
Material facts
Parties
Jasmin Kassam Khimji
Appellant Counsel: Mr. El KamryMohamed Abdul Rabi
Appellant Counsel: Mr. El KamryAbbas Sameja
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent reasonably required the suit premises for his own occupation
- 02
Whether the appellants were entitled to remain in the premises in absence of alternative accommodation
- 03
Whether the sale of the premises after judgment affected the respondent's right to vacant possession
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that they had nowhere else to go, had been paying rent through their advocate, and that the respondent had sold the house after judgment, indicating lack of genuine need for occupation. They contended that the hardship to the landlord is not recognized under the Rent Restriction Act if there is no alternative accommodation for the tenants.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the premises were reasonably required for his family's accommodation, that his family was being asked to move out of their current house, and that the appellants had defaulted in rent payment. He admitted selling the house but only after obtaining judgment, due to financial necessity.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Abdallah Aziz v Hadija Swaleh (1977) LRT No. 22
Reasonable requirement of premises by landlord for own occupation does not require alternative accommodation for tenants under certain circumstances.
- 02
Interpretation of Rent Restriction Act
Hardship to landlord is not a consideration under the Rent Restriction Act if there is no alternative accommodation for tenants.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial magistrate was correct in finding that the respondent reasonably required the premises for his own occupation and that there was no legal requirement for alternative accommodation to be available to the appellants. The sale of the premises after judgment did not affect the respondent's right to vacant possession as the sale occurred after the judgment was delivered.
Obiter and limits
- The appellate court will not consider fresh evidence unless there is an application for its admission.
- The decision in Abdallah Aziz v Hadija Swaleh remains good law and is applicable to similar facts.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Appellants to vacate the suit premises within 3 months from 30/3/1984
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 17 September 1994
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 17 September 1994
IN ~fC.E. IIIGE COURT OF Tlll•TZlilTIA /Ji? ~nAll 1.P SALll41;'.t .. --- ... CIVIL APPEAL NC.. 19 OF 1904 (From tho µ.ectsion ~:f the Dis·i.riot Court et· Kisutu :i.n Civil CL.ae no. 195 of 1982) 0 1e J ~ msm:fN KHlfil1Y ) ' ~ • • • • • • .• • • • .• • ~ .ll'l'EttANTS 2- k>~ S1lJL RKBI ) Al'3Ait SAlv!EJA • • •. • • • . ~ . , . • C • • ,. • ; • ' • • • • • • • Bl!llPONDENT ~,J., This is an appenl by Ja;i."'1or Rµssei·1 !ilia.·l;ry and Moba.mtld Abdul Rabi age.ins~- the judgment ~1d a..ctoe of ~he Rc~:;ident, l!ag'imate oourt of ~ es-:-. Salaam in whioh the trial cot~t he~.(- -~:1,·_Jli \·;;tq :i,o:,;pondent/pla.intiff dose~d v.aoant possession ()n the ~~ounds of --~··::d;::;i.c.tP• In the Dar es Salaar:i r.~siden·, 1..hh1ratoia oou:rt the respond.e1T!I/pl.a.int~. filed a. suit against the_ -~ellan-te fo:11 eviotion ot the appellants from °!ihe &Nit prelJlise.. The appellai.t1is 1'm!e te~"°!l:ts in the l!Juit premises. ~e 11\d.t premises were bol.1€h°'t by fae :respo1~e:1tts father· with the appellan11s aa tenants. The µ.PQfJ'I of btzy-i:ng the w.it llt'emises was to g,ot e.DQommo~tion· ~:- the :eapondenti a ta.th.er·; s family. \i4Gn t.1te »espondsnt.i e father died.1 the- nspo~t toqk over ·11he suit pn~se$_~ Th~ appetlante 1"!re served with. n.otioes to vacate but the.Y neve~ did. so as J;hey sald that they hed no-where to SO• The ~es.pondent ·said i"twther :µi his ,v;td.enoe
that his tamUY._, ·uas being; aakod. to move out of the hoUJJO 1n tmich tna:1 we::o at~ing because tho:, had~ their Qffl\ house-, naznel,y .,lih<? e-..1.i t tiremise s. tl,l'aQve:c-, he testified. f\.ttither, · · the plaoe whu-e his f ami!.,y 't,a,s st~ir...; wn.e toQ small, whereas the sui.t . ! ~ FeJDiees 'ffe:ct lH.ggor· and a better pla.co :fer "'li~:.1, ~'he appellants vere also· sai.d to have'. det'aulted in tl~e p~men~ of rent. • • . , I ' ' . . %n defenoe the tirat appella.n",ftaiatri 0011,:,ed.od to most ot what ,ras said. I •, b~ the r.esporident. · ~ hovrever· said-tha·~ ho ~s ~ihg rent through his . ad"f.OOate. lie admi.tted g~t·~t:ng notices to V.¥:>a.to \cAd he tr"ied to find anothtt · . . : . . \ house but he was not m.,coco3fttl• The aooond nppella.'l"ti Rabi (t8v¢ aWl.a.l:' ·--... evidence. The. lea-mod trial l:fugia'.'i;ratc found tha·~ ·t;~o su.it pr.eniises wcro reason~•:. abl:Y reqUired by tho :r1;3s~nd~_rit..' and. M.q family, A:rtor. oitin& tho oa.se of IZdallah A@iz v Jladijc\ S3r\ii1 f S7~ W 22 lie Zound ·that 1n tho ou-onnsta.noes of this oaso there was no need :tor alte1-na.~~tvo :Mcommo4a'tio1\ ·to be a.Yailab].e . to the appellants and. tho:'i; 1-'i; 1n.s r-0.asona.ble -'liO otdm' vacant t,oasessi-On against the .Appell.¢ta. 'I.1110_ lentn.od :r.qg·istrat_o _orderod. ·the appeUonts to va0ate the eui t pr:eraises m:thi11· ,3 mont!l.s from
3o/3/1984• 1 - learned Magistrate ~red i.11 holding th2.. t tho plai11·(;i:f"f' doservod vaoa.n.~ peese-esion and ·tnc ,aoooncl. ono was -:~1~t -:"\10 loc:irned Magistrate e:rred in hltcling tba.t bocnut!le tho ~cr;:p-ondant,h-0.d. ;1con r~ivcn notice by his landlord so too tho reepo~ent doscrvoll.-Vac.:;1t por.:-t:cs:::ion of the suit_ prGlliscs• ' ' ln oourt, Mr• El 1~:ti,y ~guoo. -~hat ·i~ ~¥ not ti-Qa. th.a.t- the ,:Or~------ ndent had gt"cat hardahip 1'ooro.1.m0 on J(?-/84 ~to 801d. tho house to 01¥1 ~amed Ta.id. Tanji• 1ho j~uli~Ol'\t of ·~10 oa.so llt\S dolt~ercd on 19/3/(}4.. lte: ar.guod tha.t- if tho_-»turpo11Aartt Mode(\ tho ho\.\So tor: his ~oupation, l/D3 tid. ho sell iti ~. ·m.ir..iamry rot~d to tho oasG of@st.al1ah /i.Zi~-1 ¥ j a ~ala oited. above nnd S3.1d that ~b.e dooisioll in -that oase has never ~ followid by ~ s 0-: ·l;hc IJigh Oourw M it 1~ a ~adioe.l intorprota.tion · of tho Rant Re~iotion JQt. Ho argued. ·, :.-:~ tho Rant Jlcstriotion Act .40,tf JIQ't :t'.OCog'iU.'tp tho 'llardsh:t,p ~f tho landlot',\ ii' -~hero is no alternativa aoco1111110dation. He prqyCld f c,r tho app~~ to ::,o a.llowoct. . I In :op31, the rospond.o~tt ru.\mi'.\ted scl\j,}1g -tho houso but only after pttillg tho ju.dgmGnt ill .hia tc1,vour and._ ·thnt 't-o did so as lto ow4 ·moi1o;r to· peoi,te. :C Ghoul~ fir~ .¢ all doal with tho guo ,J,ion of' salo ot the suit promiaea to one T~,
.I ® uot -soc how this 9'-tier ~ 'bo usod as the basis ot· azJY •ozment ~ i;hio CLppo~ 1ho r o ~ ~ _a.dJnits ao11~ tho hou.so (suit Jftm3,101) a.tttJr ~O_dvil~ judpont, I~. i(l. MAamry .lllainta.ins thii;h it , I was sold_ a rncmth l>Gtorc ~j~nt. .Aa-.I -said earfi= on; : do no_t s~o ho~ f,J,uu/3, .. , p· ' : I .\ ..... . ' . .<·~~-1~: , . .;:-'I:·,~- <; •.-·- ':' ,':"'"; / .,:__ -tbis apwi:I, oo.urt C~"l- stnrt: co·nsidor:\,ng :fr.U.$.Ll ovidoncc g.carcd to ahov tha,·f\~rf~; the ovidonoo· givo~ in ti.~G ~!t'ial oou;rt was no·e -~l'uo. I viould onl;f do so if ~t~}~ thow had been an applico/.;~011 for ad.(u.~:iii~:- t:!7Qs,h.·,ovidGl\oe. Jt '4ll thGl'~:-1\·:.: .).' - ~o only ~ther.. t>Zc,,;.10~1·~ by l.f.r• El &"'"~✓ is that Ai!df1ls19l,Ame;°jr~; .. . •. &A~~ ~"YI\ is bad law. ITo d.'id not ~ - 0 to om d.eoided ~ tc) ~t. effoot :Dur.thormor.e tho loarµod llnaidcut. -Magist:a~ wa~ o ~ - ~ to fol.lcp, ~ A~i s G~o i:? tho ·f'Ql:lts ,wc:c.o- similar. ~ ) ' 6 ' to· tho tac.ta foW1d I have no doubt. tlU>.t ·,:!ley Cv ,j!rJlilt\l' to tho ·f'aot1 ·in Abd..-,JJ.al,. Azizia OaeQ• :a_v docidil.'11(; aooorclli.~ to t1:tc ~1nGip1o o~i~'to~ in lbcla\lah Azizt-a oaeo- tho loarned. liL.~i.rtr2.to was· c.:;i · ~ ria'ht.·.aaak moa1\IQ ho. oould- not. ha.Vo ~ed A'bdal.1~1 ,l\.~iz' a oczc. ~:iho jud{,·ment ot tho loa.l'DCd ?,~itrlirate • hJ'"i.}~GB _, 17/9/1991 ~ Dolivorod to the p~oo· on 17/$!/(199f,- -. . .. _--;m{:~~ }_,2~. &mn:ort· -~Pt1.t'Y mroor~ ··., ·............ : .: ·: ·-,:;· ·mw ··COUR~ - .. ...
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.