Jamal Hirji v. Hassanali Kassam Harji, Misc. Civ. App. 8-D-67; 4/8/67; Saidi, J.
Appellant by verbal contract let a ground floor shop to respondent. After about a year, respondent received notice to vacate the premises. Respondent contended that the shop was let to him as mixed premises ((that is, for use both as a shop and as a dwelling house), and therefore he was protected from eviction by the Rent Restriction Act. The back of the shop contained a bedroom, kitchen, and toilet, partitioned off from the store. However, the building plan made no provision for such partition, and it was done without the approval of the City council, in violation of rule 46 of the Township. Building Rules. The Rent Restriction Board held that these were mixed premises and consequently respondent could not be evicted.
Appellant argued that if respondent prevailed, this would amount to sanctioning a breach of the Township Rules, in contravention of public policy. Respondent argued that appellant was the only wrongdoer here, that he should not be made to suffer because of the wrong of another, and that he was using the premises according to the tenor of his contract with appellant.
Held: (1) The premises were not mixed premises in the eyes of the law. “The Township Ordinance Cap. 101 and Rules made there under are part and parcel of the laws of the country which no court of law in the country can overload. It would therefore be wrong to approve the violation of any of the country’s laws or by-laws.” (2) As the appellant himself was responsible for the unauthorized alterations and he misled the respondent by letting to him a shop purporting to be mixed premises which he was not authorized to do, appellant was ordered to pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Rent Restriction Board.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.