Murray v Hosein

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Kelsick, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 22 October 1979
• Neutral Citation: TT 1979 CA 33
• Docket Number: Mag. App. No. 144 of 1979
• Date: 22 October 1979

Murray

and

Hosein

Scott, J.A.; Kelsick, J.A.

Mag. App. No. 144 of 1979

Court of Appeal

Real Property - Landlord and tenant — Possession.

Appearances:

Mr. H. Samuel appeared for the appellant.

Mr. M. Howell appeared for the respondent.

Kelsick, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the order of a magistrate ordering that a warrant of possession should be issued in respect of premises which were rented by the respondent to the appellant. The evidence is that the building consisted of an upstairs which was resting on pillars. The upstairs of the building was completed before the 12th February, 1954, and was subject to the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In 1963 the landlord enclosed the bottom of the building into two apartments, one of which he rented to the appellant at the relevant time. The appellant was not the first tenant of these premises. The first tenant in 1963 paid $35.00 a month. The appellant was paying $60.00 a month and his tenancy was terminated by a notice to Quit.

2 When the matter came before the magistrate it was submitted by the solicitor for the respondent that the building was de-controlled because it was a new building, having been constructed after the 12th February, 1954. By implication reliance was being placed on the Rent Restriction (Exclusion of Premises) Order 1954 which de-controlled new buildings erected after the 12th February 1954. “New building” is defined in that order in four categories. The only one under which this building could possibly come was the fourth category, that is: “the making or conversion into a building which is fit for human habitation of any structure or building not originally constructed for human habitation.”

3 In Gibson v. Martin (1961) 3 W.I.R., 335, a point arose for decision. The full court on that occasion held, and I quote from page 338:

“While the evidence may have supported the making or conversion of it into a building fit for human habitation, there was none to show that it was not originally constructed for human habitation. For example, it may well have been so constructed originally for use as a garage, a warehouse or a shop, but there was no evidence to establish that it was constructed for any such user or to negative its user for human habitation. The structure between the pillars downstairs prior to its enclosure was at most a neutral circumstance having regard to the fact that the house, as it then was, was being occupied as a...