By George Barclay

IN 2006, Shurland’s Case & Pallet Manufacturers sued appellants Milco Garment Industries Ltd for $4,020,000 as arrears for land rented at East 1/2, Industrial site, Ruimveldt.The appellants set up themselves as statutory tenants whose five-year agreement had ended and that the High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
A High Court judge disagreed and found for the respondent. The appellant appealed.
The Appellate Court constituted Justices of Appeal Claudette Singh, Nandram Kissoon and Ian Chang, which heard the matter, dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay $50,000 costs to the Respondent.
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 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 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 occupied the premises but that the rent was not up to date.
The issue addressed at 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 is appealed.
The appellants contend that the trial judge had no jurisdiction, as statutory tenancy was a matter to be dealt with by the Magistrate Court, 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 contract.
The Guyana Court of Appeal held 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 missed rental payments were owed to the Respondent.
Appeal dismissed. Decision of the trial judge upheld. Costs awarded to the Respondent. Lawyer Mr. Benjamin Gibson for the appellants. Mr. Ashton Chase, SC with Miss P.Chase for the Respondent.
Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice of Appeal Madam Claudette Singh said Shurland’s Case and Pallet Manufacturers, the respondent, entered into a written agreement on June 8,1996 with the appellants, Milco Garment 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 special 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 of each and every month.
At paragraph 3 it was contended that the tenancy was for a period of five 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 five 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 testified on behalf of the Appellants that despite the fact that the agreement had come to an end he had continued to pay the rental of $360,000.
Under cross-examination he admitted that they were still occupying the premises but the rental was not up to date. He also stated that he had discussions with the respondent Shurland concerning a reduced rental but no agreement was arrived at.
It is important to note that the written agreement came into effect in August 1996 and would have expired on July 31, 2001.
The issues which the trial judge had to determine were 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 from this decision the appeal emanated.
Mr. 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.
Mr. Gibson further submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction in that although the tenancy was for a period of five years it was not registered and on its expiration the Appellants became statutory tenants in accordance with section 21 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act Cap 36,23 and as such under section 26 (1) all claims arising under the act must be instituted in the Magistrate’s Court.
Continuing her judgment, Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh added: “Senior Counsel, Mr. 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 Singh added: “Senior counsel argued that by oral agreement the parties continued the tenancy on the same terms and conditions in June 2001 and in the circumstances no statutory tenancy was created and as a consequence the High Court had Jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.”