Narndlal Ambasana v. Harilal Mahta. Civ. App. 3-D-68; 28/3/69; Duff J.

Narndlal Ambasana v. Harilal Mahta. Civ. App. 3-D-68; 28/3/69; Duff J.

The respondent, who occupied a flat on the appellant’s premises, was satisfied with the tenancy until his electricity was disconnected

by the electricity company because of faulty wiring and inadequate ear thing. He showed the notice for repairs from the electricity company to the appellant landlord, and asked him to effect the necessary repairs. The landlord refused, claiming that repairs were the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant then made an application to the Rent Restriction Board to reduce the standard rent of his flat, which resulted in the standard rent being reduced from Shs. 233/20 to Shs. 200/- per month until such time as the repairs were affected by the landlord. The landlord appealed on the grounds that the landlord was under no obligation to carry out repairs to the electricity system.

            Held: (1) “In reducing the amount of the standard rent the Boar ad purported to act under the provisions of Sections 4(2) (aa) and 4(5) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1962, but it would appear that Section 4(5) aforesaid was the relevant sub-section, the power being given therein to the Board to reduce the standard rent until such time as repairs, which are the obligation of the landlord, either by agreement or custom or under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, are carried out.”  (2) “Under the Rent Restriction Act, Cap. 479, presumably in the absence of any agreement to the contrary it is deemed to be the obligation of the landlord to keep and maintain the premises in a state of good structural repair and in a condition suitable for human habitation while it is also the duty of the tenant to maintain the premises in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted (Section 29(1) of the Act refers). A tenant’s obligation, under the Act, is to take care that the premises do not suffer more than the operation of time and nature would effect. The “wear and tear” exception exempts a tenant from liability for remedying parts of the demised premised that wear out, the landlord being the person responsible for these repairs.” (3) “An obligation to keep the premises in a condition suitable for human habitation binds the landlord to keep and maintain them in such a state that they may be occupied not only with safety but with reasonable comfort, for the purposes for which they were take.” (4) “The implied covenant to repair is not confined to structural repair but also to the installation of; inter alia, electricity – not electrical appliances – which must be kept in repair and working order. The tenant contracted for the electricity installation when he rented the flat and the failure of the landlord to repair the electrical wiring was a repudiation of his agreement to keep and maintain the premises in a proper state of repair. In the circumstances the decision of the Board to reduce the rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Act was perfectly correct and unassailable.” (5) Appeal dismissed.