TANNOUS V. KIRPALANI & ANOR.

• Pages: 288-291

288



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

Appeal against conviction and

sentence dismissed: Matter

referred to trial judge to

incorporate in his judgment the

statutory direction.

TANNOUS V. KIRPALANI & ANOR.

5

10

JAMIL TANNOUS

V

1.

U.K. KIRPALANI

2.

N.U. KIRPALANI

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC/620/1966

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.



20

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

6th December, 1968

Land Law - Landlord and Tenant - Rent Restriction Act, Cap.183 - Rent referred

to in s.7 must be such rent as contemplated by ss.2 and 9 - Premises



25

originally let as unfurnished - Later premises furnished and let as furnished

at a higher rent - Rent of premises for purposes of s.9 of the Act is such

amount agreed upon when premises were first let as furnished - Rent

Restriction Act, ss2, 7 and 9.

30

ISSUE:

1. Where certain premises first let out unfurnished are later let out at an increased

rent as furnished premises, can the new rent fall within the contemplation of s.2

and s.9 of the Rent Restriction Act, so as to make s.7 of the Act apply.

FACTS:



35

The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit instituted at the Lagos Magistrate's Court

against the defendants. The plaintiff claimed £400 as arrears of rents owed by the

defendants to him in respect of fully furnished premises in Lagos which he had let

out to them at the agreed rate of £200 yearly. The 1st defendant was the original

tenant, but before his lease of the first year was up, he left the country and assigned



40

the tenancy to the defendants' company in which he (the 1st defendant) was one

of the partners. The plaintiff hired the premises as unfurnished for £75 yearly and

then let it out as furnished to the defendants for £200 yearly. After the defendants'

company took over the premises they wrote the plaintiff informing him that as they

had learned he hired the premises at £75 per annum, they were no more willing



45

to pay the rent of £200 per annum but will pay £75 per annum. The plaintiff re-

fused to accept cheques for this amount sent to him by the defendants. The defence

contended that the plaintiff would be contravening s.7 of the Rent Restriction Act

if he let out at any amount over £75. The trial Magistrate rejected the case for the

defence and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed. The defend-



50

ants appealed to the Lagos High Court, where the appeal was allowed and the trial

Magistrate's judgment was set aside. The plaintiff thereupon appealed to the Su-

preme Court, where the main issue was as to whether or not the plaintiff was en-

titled to recover the agreed rent of £200 per annum.