Haji v. Gangji Civ. App. 32-D-70; 22/3/71; Georges C. J.

 

Haji v. Gangji Civ. App. 32-D-70; 22/3/71; Georges C. J.

The appellant was ordered to pay Shs. 2, 800/- being arrears of rent and to deliver vacant possession of premises. He did not appear at any stage of the proceedings which were determined exparte. There was evidence that he had gone to India. The ground of appeal was that the magistrate had not taken into account whether or not it was reasonable to make an order for vacant possession as is required by s. 19(2) Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 479). The Court also considered whether the appeal was lodged out of time.

            Held: (1) “The brief judgment does not indicate positively that the magistrate considered this issue of reasonableness. The absence of the direct statement to that effect in judgment is not, however, in my view, fatal.” (2) [Citing Lalji Gajar v. Karim, (1969) H. C. D. 294]:- An appellate court may presume that the court of first instance addressed itself to the question of reasonableness even if no express reference is made to such aspect. (3) Because the appellant had left for India and 5 months had elapsed without any rent being paid, it was patently reasonable to make an order for vacant possession. (4) “This application was heard and dismissed on 27^th October, two days before expiry of the period within which the appeal should have been filed. On that very date the appellant applied for a copy of the judgment in order to seek remedy by way of appeal. He received the copy of the order on 9^th November and notice of appeal was filed on

10^th November, some two weeks after the period had expired. In these circumstances I do not think that the appeal was out of time as the period of waiting for the copy of the order ought not to be counted.” (5) Appeal dismissed.