Landlord and Tenant-Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949-Premises let as dwelling-house-Effect of use of one room as private office-By-laws prohibiting change of user except with permission-Presumption from protracted use.
Case summary
The defendant was the tenant of buildings on a plot in Nairobi which originally comprised premises built as shops, living quarters, and stores. One room, originally built as a shop, was used by the defendant as an office or study.
The rest of the premises were used by the appellant as his dwelling and for purposes ancillary thereto. All the premises were let to the defendant as dwelling accommodation. The defendant had two business premises in another part of Nairobi.
The plaintiff sued for those parts of the premises which had originally been built as shops and stores on the ground that they were business premises and/or that their user as dwellings was unlawful.
Held (2nd May 1956):
The premises were used by the defendant as part of his dwelling-house and had been let to him as such.
The fact that a tenant of a dwelling-house sets apart one room in it as a private office or study, in which he deals with business matters in his home, does not make that room business premises within the meaning of the Ordinance.
If, under Municipal By-laws, the permission of the Town Clerk was required before the rooms built as shops or stores could be used as habitable rooms, protracted user, as habitable rooms, could raise a presumption that such permission had been obtained in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Counsel:
Morgan for the plaintiff.
Akram for the defendant.
Reported by:
I. R. Thompson, Esq., Resident Magistrate, Nairobi.
