Mwananchi Engineering & Contracting Co. v. S. N. Teja, Misc. Civ. App. 17-D-67, 25/4/68, Biron J.

Mwananchi Engineering & Contracting Co. v. S. N. Teja, Misc. Civ. App. 17-D-67, 25/4/68, Biron J.

An employee of appellant company was housed in the ground floor of a building of flats owned by respondent. Respondent sought to convert the ground floor of his building into commercial premises, to which end he had obtained the necessary permission from the Minister that the re-development of the ground floor was in the public interest. The Rent Restriction Board granted respondent possession of the ground floor.

            Held: (1) Section 19(1) of the Rent Restriction Act provides that no order for the ejectment of a tenant shall be made unless “….. (n) the landlord requires possession of the premises for the purposes of re-development otherwise than as a dwelling house, and the Minister has certified that such re-development is in the public interest.” Section 19(11) makes such certificate admissible before the Board or a court. However, section 19(2) of the Act provides that recovery of possession of premises shall granted only if the Board is convinced that  “…. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is reasonable to make such an order.” (2) The certificate from the Minister is conclusive on the issue of the public interest. The Board or a court may not make a separate inquiry as to whether converting premises to business use would be in the public Interest. (3) However, before an order of ejectment is made the court (or Board) must be affirmatively convinced that it is “reasonable” to eject the tenant. (4) As there was sufficient material before the High Court it proceeded to determine the question of reasonableness. (5) The landlord was granted vacant possession, but such possession “…… is not to be delivered up until reasonable alternative accommodation is available to the tenant, that is, the person in actual possession, as opposed to his company.”