N. Y. Arejian V. Alhadji B. A. Sulemon & Anor (1952)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal

Landlord and Tenant—Recovery of Premises Ordinance, section 19 (1) (e)—New Landlord proving his title.

Facts

The above provision requires a landlord to prove his title if it has accrued since the letting of the premises.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff, testified at the trial that “he bought the hotel from the previous proprietor who had let the shop in question to the defendants. The shop is part of the hotel”. This evidence was not challenged by the defendants, and the Magistrate was satisfied that the plaintiff sufficiently proved his title to the premises which he was suing to recover.

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that they were the tenants of the Hotel Bristol, not of the appellant. The Judge held that there was nothing in the record to show Arejian’s connection with the Bristol hotel vis-a-vis the defendants, and reversed the decision of the Magistrate. The plaintiff appealed to the West African Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff’s letters to the defendants were written on paper headed “Hotel Bristol” and signed by the plaintiff as proprietor or manager of the hotel; one of his letters was asking the defendants to quit the shop, and in reply to it the defendants addressed a letter to Messrs. Hotel Bristol. There was also the oral testimony of the plaintiff set out above. The Hotel Bristol was not a legal entity but a mere name.

Held

According to the evidence the property called the Hotel Bristol was in the ownership of the appellant by purchase, and the Magistrate rightly found that the appellant had proved his title as the new landlord of the respondents.

Appeal allowed.