Bilali v. Kheri Civ. App. 128-M-70; 18/11/70; Mnzavas Ag. J

 

Bilali v. Kheri  Civ. App. 128-M-70; 18/11/70; Mnzavas Ag. J

            Respondent used to rent appellant’s house commencing sometime in December 1967 at the agreed rent of Shs.210/- per month. It was alleged that the respondent defaulted in payment of rent from   August to October 1968 when he vacated the house, locked it and went away with the keys. When sued for arrears of rent, the respondent denied having left the house on his own motion and alleged that he left because the appellant had ordered him to            pay Shs.300/= per month rent and not Shs.210/= per month as therefore he left.. It was stated that appellant refused to accept the in the court below.

 

                        Held: (1) The kind of in issue tenancy was what could be called a periodic and monthly tenancy.  (2)  “The law regarding periodic tenancies is that a periodic tenancy may apart from any      special terms to the contrary, be brought to an end by the unilateral act of either party. Periodic tenancies as in the case here are determined by notice of a length corresponding to the period. In this case one month’s notice to quit would have been enough – In fact the appellant issued two months notice to quit to the respondent. From the argument of the appellant before this Court he appeared to waive the notice to quit, but, unfortunately, this is not possible at this stage, once a valid notice to quit has been served, the tenancy will automatically come to an end of the expiration of such notice – even though the party giving it later decides to the contrary.”  (3) “For the above reasons, the tenancy between the appellant and the respondent came to an end at the end of October 1968 when the contents of the appellant’s letter of 30.8.68 became operative. The respondent had therefore the right, indeed it was his duty, to hand over the keys of the house to the owner, the appellant. If he continued living in the house after the expiry of the notice to quit he would have been doing so as a tenant on sufferance making him liable to the usual consequences accompanying such a tenancy”. (4) “The respondent cannot be blamed for appellant’s refusal to accept the keys to the house. There was no covenant for repairs, general or otherwise and as such the respondent was not bound to give up the premises in as good a state of repair as when he took possession.”  (5) Appeal dismissed.