-Full Court upholds decision
IN 1973, the appellant, B.S.E. Williams, an aging and ailing landlord, applied for possession of his three-flat premises in Georgetown on the pretext of physical hardship. The tenant did not testify, but rested his case on the submission of his counsel that a reasonable requirement of the premises on the ground of ‘own use’ had not been shown.
The learned magistrate, having accepted the landlord’s evidence in its entirety, nevertheless refused to make an order for possession.
The landlord then appealed to the Full Court.
That Court, constituted by Chief Justice H.B.S. Bollers and Justice Maurice Churaman, dismissed the appeal from the magistrate’s refusal and held:
(1)That the application was not bona fide; and
(2) That the evidence fell short of showing a genuine present need for the landlord’s possession, but only an anticipated need for the premises.

Attorney-at-law,  O.M. Valz , S.C. , appeared for the appellant, while Senior Counsel,  Miles Fitzpatrick     represented the respondent.
Delivering the Judgment of the Court,   Justice Bollers said:
“The appellant/landlord,  now some  62 years old, is the owner of a number of properties, altogether  at least five, situate at various places within the city of Georgetown.
“At an early age, he became afflicted with paralysis, from which he appeared to have partially recovered;   about three nor four years ago, the effects again manifested themselves, but he has since been able to walk.  In addition, he suffers from general ill-health, and  the gravamen of his complaint is the undue physical strain  in mounting stairways due to his physical condition.
“He at present resides in a three-flat building, which consists of the upper flat housing four bedrooms, inclusive of bath, a middle flat containing dining and sitting room with an additional bedroom occupied by his brother and brother’s wife, but which is expected to be shortly available to him if it is not so by now, and a lower  flat housing servants quarters and garage accommodation . 
“It is evident that this somewhat accommodious building adequately accommodates the appellant,  his wife and  six children who reside with him. It is to be noted that the appellant’s complaint is not the lack of accommodation, but solely the difficulty in ascending and descending staircases, notably when necessary to visit his bath, which necessitates one flight of stairs, and when going to his car; which means descending one or two flights of stairway.
“He admits, in evidence, that the premises, at present occupied by respondent as a statutory tenant, is one for which he has an attachment, having lived in those particular premises. Additionally, he claims that these are self-contained, with all conveniences on one floor, which would ideally meet his requirements, notwithstanding that he would have to ascend and descend one flight  of stairs, as the premises are elevated.
“Having offered the respondent alternative accommodation, which was refused by the latter, the appellant moved to the Magistrates Court of the Georgetown Judicial District for an order for possession of the premises now occupied by the respondent/tenant, on the ground that the premises are reasonably required for his own use.
“The appellant alone testified.  Counsel for the respondent/tenant being content to rest his case on certain submissions which the learned magistrate upheld, the appellant now appeals to the Court.
“Before the learned magistrate, it is of moment to observe that the appellant admitted that on account of his physical handicap, the ideal situation would be for him to live at ground level, but he said he did not care to do so, as he believes it will be too damp.
“He further admitted that his present residence with a bedroom in the middle flat may adequately satisfy  his needs with the insertion of a bath, and so avoid a necessity to climb an additional stairway, thus equating the conditions with those of the premises in question.  
“His answer to that is that he does not like the bedroom in the middle flat of his present residence.      Additionally, the appellant has a two-storeyed building immediately this existing residence, which accommodates the lower flat at ground level.  The lower flat appears to be self-contained, and was vacant about a year previous to the instant application for possession.
“The appellant’s answer to not availing himself  of those premises is to the effect that apart from not wanting  to live at  ground level despite his admission  that it is the best solution to his problems of mobility, he does not like the surroundings, despite the fact that it is behind  his existing residence.”
According to Justice Bollers in his judgment: “It requires  but little imagination to see that the primary consideration of the appellant is his anticipation that the children , now all grown, may shortly go their several ways when this somewhat commodious property  may be wholly superfluous  for the needs of himself  and his wife.”
Continuing with his presentation, Justice Bollers said: “Counsel for the appellant submits before us that the magistrate, having accepted the appellant’s testimony in its entirety,  a clear case for an order  had been made out on the evidence led.
“The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has not shown a genuine present need as contemplated in the first of these considerations. The authorities are clear that before an order  of possession can be made, it is the duty of the landlord  to establish that the premises are reasonably required for his own use.  In other words, there is an onus cast upon him to show a genuine present need, and not a mere desire or claim.
“The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant’s motivation for an order is not so much that he is in need  of these premises on the pretended ground  of a physical handicap as he alleges,  as much as he apprehends that at some date in the near future, his present residence would become superfluous for just himself and wife, and he wishes to prepare for such eventuality,  because of his attachment  for the premises in question. Rather than a need therefor, he seeks to obtain an order for possession in anticipation thereof.
“Clearly, the application is not bona fide, and the evidence falls far short of showing a genuine  present need. While we appreciate that as a proprietor of more than two premises, the appellant may satisfy his personal choice in respect of which of the premises he shall live, nevertheless his decision must be based on a genuine present need and not an anticipating need.
“The appeal is accordingly dismissed,  the order of the magistrate affirmed with costs to the respondent, with costs to the respondent.”