Makhan et Al v Addie et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Warner, J. |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1980 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1980 HC 102 |
| Docket Number | No. 4102 of 1979 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 30 November 1980 |
High Court
Warner, J.
No. 4102 of 1979
D. Patrick for plaintiff
Miss. J. Jones for defendant.
Real Property - Ownership.
Real Property - Landlord and tenant — Tenancy — Rights of Tenant.
The plaintiffs in this action are claiming to be owners of a parcel of land at John Street, Montrose Villages, Chaguanas measuring 133ft. x 50ft. Of this parcel of land, they state, the defendants are and were the monthly tenants paying a monthly rent of $2.80.
The Statement of Claim also recites that by letter dated 2nd June, 1979 the plaintiffs acting by their agent offered to sell the premises to the defendants at the price of $12.00 per square foot, the offer being valid for 60 days after the 2nd June, 1979. This offer, the Statement of Claim continues, was not accepted by the defendants.
In paragraph 5 there is contained what I regard as the principal allegation in the plaintiff's case: It is that sometime in or about November 1979 the defendants began to erect a structure or building on the on the premises to replace the dwelling house which was standing there end that this was done without the approval of the plaintiffs and/or the competent authorities. The plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that they are owners of the parcel of land, an injunction restraining the defendants from erecting or continuing to erect a building on the, premises and a mandatory order that the defendants pull down and demolish the building recently erected or in the course of erection.
In their Defense the defendants state that they are tenants of the plaintiffs in respect of the parcel of land but claim that they are yearly tenants at $37.00 per year and not monthly tenants. They claim that the parcel of land is “building land” subject to the Rent Restriction Ordinance Ch. 27 No. 18. At paragraph 5 of the Defense it is claimed that it is an implied term of the tenancy of the parcel of land that the defendants will construct, maintain and/or keep in good tenantable repair such premises as they may desire from time to time on building land for the purposes of residence thereon.
Further, in paragraph 6, the defendants allege that it is an implied term of the tenancy agreement that the landlord will not hinder or prevent unreasonably the defendants from erecting any structure on, the said parcel of land for the purpose of the residence of the defendants.
In the counterclaim the defendants aver that they are desirous of constructing new premises and in preparation have had plans drawn and approved by the competent authority. They also state that they have demolished the tapia building, which had become uninhabitable with the intention of its replacement by a new structure for the purpose of residence thereon.
There follows the allegation that the plaintiffs' agent acting on their behalf has purported to refuse and/or withhold their consent for the erection of the now premises. The main issues in the action therefore are whether the defendants did erect a building without the approval of the plaintiffs and/or of the competent authority, whether approval if they did erect without such approval they acted wrongfully entitling the plaintiffs to any relief, whether the terms claimed by the defendant be implied terms of the tenancy are implied terms of the same, end whether the defendants are entitled to any or all of the relief sought in the counterclaim.
The evidence for the plaintiffs came from Juggernaut Markham, agent of the plaintiffs and from Reynolds Honors a Public Health ‘Inspector attached the County Caroni, while both defendants gave evidence on their own behalf.
The case for the plaintiffs was that the parcel of land had been part of a larger parcel purchased in 1941. It was all land planted in sugar cane at the time and there was a small tapia house on the parcel which used to be occupied by an estate caretaker. After the Makhans had acquired the land, an uncle of Juggernauth was occupying the parcel living in the house and using the land for purposes of a kitchen garden.
One Elena McCollin then became the tenant of the parcel and she paid a rental of $2.00 per month. The rental for 12 months was paid once during the year together with a sum for rates and taxes. This brought the total sum paid to $37.60. In 1974 the defendants Mr. And Mrs. Addie had the tenancy transferred to them from Elena McCollin said they bought the house which stood on the lands from her for $400 according to Jaggernauth Makhan at that time there was no longer the tapia house on the lands, but a board house.
In May 1979 Jaggernauth Makhan saw building materials accumulated on the premises and enquired about them from the defendant Frank Addie, who told him that he would later be seeking to buy the parcel of land from them. At a later stage the defendants asked Makhan to sell them the land and requested from him a letter which they could take to the bank, presumably in order to obtain financing for the purchase. Makhan gave the defendants a letter, which was an offer for sale open for 60 days, the price fixed being $12.00 per square foot.
The offer was not accepted by the defendants who said that the bank considered the price too high. Jaggernauth Makhan then made an oral offer to sell for $10.00 per square foot. This offer as not accepted. Later the plaintiffs' agent observed further stocking of building materials and caused his solicitors to write to the defendants, informing them of objection to putting up a new structure. Mr. Makhan had never given them permission to construct new building.
In November 1979 Jaggernauth Makhan saw that the house which had been on the land was demolished and a new building was going up. Another firm of solicitors wrote on his behalf.
There was also evidence that application was made to the Local Health Authority for the County of Caroni for approval of the erection of the building on the lands occupied by the defendants. It was received on 20th November 1978. The application was not approved by the authority and was withdrawn. Before the application was withdrawn, it was brought to the notice of the draughtsman for the applicants that the landlord had not signed the application. These applications must be countersigned by the landlord.
The case for the defendants was that they had been tenants of the defendant's agent in respect of another parcel of land at Enterprise paying a yearly rental of $25,00. They had bought an old house on that land. In 1974 they bought the house on the lands at John Street from Mr. McCollin. It was a tapia house. The tenancy of the lot was transferred to them and Mr. Makhan himself had signed the receipt for the purchase price of the tapia house as a witness. The John Street area was a better area than Enterprise. The house at John Street was not in good condition and they had told Mr. Makhan that they could not live in that house for very long and he had said that when the time came he would help them. This was just as they were leaving the office at Mr. Makhan's home where the business had been transacted.
Some time in 1977 they had approached Mr. Makhan in order to obtain his signature on the application for approval of building plans. He said that he would not be able to sign it, but sent them to one of his children. They went to Henry, one of Mr. Makhan's sons. He did sign the application. They were referred to Reynold, another of Makhan's sons. He did not sign either. I may state here in parenthesis that neither of these sons is included amount the owners of the land. When the Addie went back to Mr. Jaggernauth Makhan, he told them he would sign the plans but they would have to give him $5,000,00. This they refused to do. In November 1979 as the tapia house on the land became more dangerous they began to erect the new building.
Some of the main areas of dispute on facts are whether the house which was demolished to make way for the new structure was a tapia house in a dilapidated state or a wooden house which could have lasted another 10 or more years, whether the rental of the parcel at John Street was a monthly rental of $2, OO or an annual rental of $37.60, and whether Jaggernauth Makhan demanded $5,000.00 as a condition precedent to consenting on behalf of the plaintiffs to a new structure being erected on the lands. I find that the house was a tapia...
To continue reading
Request your trial