Appellant loses Rental Agreement case : -respondent receives $50, 000 costs & $4M rental

THE Guyana Court of Appeal in 2004 disposed of a Rental Case by holding that there was an oral agreement to extend the original rental agreement and as such the case was not one of statutory tenancy and need not be heard before the Magistrate Court.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal brought by Milco Garment Industries Ltd., et al against the respondent, Ivan Shurland and ruled that the decision of the trial judge be upheld.
The facts of the case disclosed that the appellants rented a building from the respondent.
The respondent claimed that the appellants were in arrears of rental for the said property from July 2001, and that the rent due was $4,020, 000.
The Appellants claimed that the rental agreement ended on June 7, 2001. The respondent claimed that the lease was continued under the same terms by oral agreement of the parties in June 2001.
The respondent claimed that the lease was continued under the same terms by oral agreement of the parties in June 2001.
The appellants testified that they continued to pay the rent despite the fact that the rental period had come to an end, however they admitted under cross-examination that they still had occupied the premises but that the rent was not up to date.
The issue addressed at the trial was whether a statutory tenancy came into being or whether the contractual tenancy continued. The trial judge found that the contractual tenancy continued, premised on an oral agreement. It is this decision that was appealed.
The appellants contended that the trial judge had no jurisdiction, as statutory tenancy is a matter to be dealt with by the Magistrate Court and not the High Court.
The respondent argued that there was in fact no statutory tenancy, but rather simply an extension of the original rental agreement by oral agreement.
The Court of Appeal, constituted by Justice of Appeal Justice Claudette Singh, Justice of Appeal, Mr. Nandram Kissoon and Mr. Ian Chang, held that: There was an oral agreement to extend the original rental agreement, and as such the case is not one of statutory tenancy, and need not be heard before the Magistrate Court; the missed rental payments are owed to the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial judge upheld. Costs were awarded to the respondent.
Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh who delivered the judgment of the Court said : “Shurland’s Case and Pallet Manufacturers, the respondents, entered into a written agreement on June 8, 1996, with the appellants-Milco Garments Industries Limited in relation to building premises situated at E ½ 37,Industrial Site, Ruimveldt , Georgetown, at a monthly rental of $360,000 payable in advance with effect from August 1, 1996.”
“By way of a specially endorsed writ the respondent claimed that the appellants were in arrears of rental for the said premises from July 2001 and that the rental due was $4, 020, 000.
“The appellants, in their affidavit of defence sworn by Claude Miller at paragraph 2 deposed : “I am a Statutory Tenant in respect of a piece of land rented from the plaintiff at a monthly rental of $360, 000, payable at the end and each of every month.”
“At paragraph 3 it was contended that the tenancy was for a period of 5 years which ended on June 7, 2001 and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The respondent in its affidavit in reply contended that the written lease was continued under the same terms and conditions by oral agreement between the parties in June 2001.”
“Ivan Shurland, the Managing Director, tendered the written agreement which was for a duration of 5 years. He testified that although the written agreement had expired in June 2001, they had entered into an oral agreement to continue on the same terms and arrangements.”
“Claude Miller who testified on behalf of the appellants said that despite the fact that the agreement had come to an end he had continued to pay the rental of $360, 000.”
“ Mr. Benjamin Gibson, counsel for the appellants, contended that the agreement came to an end on June 7, 2001 but that the tenant remained in possession and was deemed a statutory tenant. That the tenant fell into arrears and paid no rent after June 2001 and on June 17, 2002, the respondent commenced proceedings to recover the rental for the period of July 2001 to June 2002. Moreover, that the statement of claim did not disclose any new agreement of tenancy.”
“In this case, Claude Miller, one of the appellants, admitted under cross-examination that the rental is not up to date.”
“The payment of rental in accordance with the terms of agreement was made a condition by the section. It is crystal clear from the wording of Section 21 of the Act that a tenant who owes rental would be in breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement of tenancy, and would not be able to claim any benefits under the Act.”
“Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashton Chase submitted that the written agreement came to an end on July 31, 2001, but prior to that in June 2001 the parties orally agreed that the agreement be continued on the same terms and conditions,” Justice of Appeal Singh declared as she upheld the decision of the learned trial judge.
Written By George Barclay

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.