IN 1971, the Appellant Edward Gaznabi who instituted a $250 claim out of Rent Control Ordinance, appealed same only to find that the Full Court ruled that the Magistrate was right to decline jurisdiction.

Gaznabi’s appeal was dismissed.
IN 1971 the Appellant Gaznabi appealed from a Magistrate’s Court of the Georgetown Judicial District.

The appellant was the landlord of one Adams in respect of premises situated at Kitty. In February 1969, Adams left the premises to work in the hinterland. In April 1969, the respondent, a member of the tenant’s household, in consideration of the appellant’s forbearance to sue Adams for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent, agreed to meet personally the obligations of the tenant, Adams. A statutory tenancy came into being with effect from 30th November, 1969, on the contractual tenancy having been determined by notice to quit.

In June 1970, without any notice to the appellant, all members of the tenant’s household vacated the premises leaving behind them arrears of rent and the results of certain acts of waste. The appellant brought his claim in the magistrate’s court against the respondent for the sum of $756.00 – $630.00 due as rent and $125 .00 as damages for waste. He argued that the claim was one which arose out of the Rent Control Ordinance. The question on appeal was whether the magistrate was right to decline jurisdiction.
HELD: (i) the cause of action pleaded was a common law one of breach of contract of indemnity;

(ii) the appellant would have had to rely on his agreement with the respondent and a breach thereof and not on any provision of the Rent Control Ordinance;
(iii) the claim could not be said to arise out of the Ordinance, and as it was one in excess of $250.00, it was outside the jurisdiction of the
Appeal dismissed.

O. M. Valz for the Appellant.
V. M. Newton for the Respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Bollers of the Full Court. The other member of the Full Court was Justice Gonsalves-Sabola.
The Chief Justice said: The appellant was at the Georgetown Judicial District, declining jurisdiction to entertain a plaint claiming from the respondent the sum of $756.00.
The plaint, a novel one, recited the following facts –

The appellant was the landlord of one Alton Adams in respect of premises at 34 Shell Road, Kitty, rented at a monthly sum of $35.oo. In or about February 1969, the tenant, Alton Adams left the demised premises to seek for gold and diamonds in the hinterland. On or about 1st April 1969, the respondent , a member of the tenant’s household, in consideration of the appellant’s forbearance to sue the tenant for possession on the ground of non- payment of rent, assumed personal liability to the appellant.

By a notice to quit, the contractual tenancy was determined with effect from 30th November, 1969, and the tenant having held over a statutory tenancy came into being.
It is open to argument whether the alleged contract was really one of indemnity and not an ineffectual attempt at novation dressed up to look like an indemnity.
But be that as it may, it is not apprehended how the respondent’s indemnification of the appellant landlord in respect of a statutory tenant’s obligation to pay rent and to make good, waste, could convert the appellant’s claim from one arising out of the common law to one arising out of the Rent Control Ordinance.

In other words, the appellant in order to establish his claim would have had to rely on his agreement with the respondent and a breach thereof, and not on any provision of the Rent Control Ordinance Cap. 186.
The plaint, a work of artful legal draftsmanship, pursued a tortuous course to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court, but since we hold that the claim, one in excess of $250.00, does not arise out of the Rent Control Ordinance, it was by s. 3 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Petty Debt) Ordinance, Cap. 16, outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court.

The learned Magistrate was right to decline jurisdiction and that being so, this appeal is dismissed and the ruling of the Magistrate is affirmed.
The respondent will have her costs..
Appeal dismissed.