Landlord and Tenant-Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949-Consent order to grant lease of rebuilt premises-Stipulated rent based on rent restriction legislation-Legislation expired before lease executed-Power of Court to enforce Order.
Case summary
The respondent (tenant) surrendered possession of certain premises on condition that it was granted a lease of the rebuilt shop. The rent was an agreed one based on the Rent Restriction Ordinance. A consent order in these terms was filed with the Rent Control Board. When the new premises were ready, the landlord vacillated, then sought to impose a rent in excess of that agreed. The tenant took the matter to the Resident Magistrate’s Court where it filed the consent order, and in due course a lease was drawn up and executed by the
Court.
The landlord then appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the order was filed on the day that the Ordinance ceased to apply to these premises, and thereafter the magistrate had no power to make any order; while the order was, in any event, in such uncertain terms as to be unenforceable.
The appeal was dismissed.
[Editorial Note: There was a further appeal to E.A. Court of Appeal (1957) E.A. (C.A.) 826.]
Held (17th August 1956):
A consent order stands in the same position as an order of the Court until discharged by the parties, or set aside, and one party cannot resile therefrom, nor complain of its provisions.
The expiration of an Ordinance does not necessarily deprive parties of rights granted under it, nor the Court concerned of its power to enforce.
Tenancies other than statutory ones can in certain circumstances be granted and enforced by a subordinate court.
Cited:
Fry, Specific Performance of Contracts; Craies, Statute Law; Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure; Hill and Redman, Law of Landlord and Tenant.
Counsel:
A. R. Kapila for the appellants.
J. J. Patel for the respondent.
Reported by:
R. H. Lownie, Esq., Resident Magistrate, Nairobi.
