Thomas v Mahatoo

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Hassanali, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1983
• Neutral Citation: TT 1983 CA 25
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1979
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 14 November 1983

Court of Appeal

Hassanali, J.A.; Braithwaite, J.A

Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1979

Thomas

and

Mahatoo

Appearances:

W. Campbell for the appellant

H. Harrikissoon for the respondent

Real Property - Landlord and tenant — Recovery of possession

Hassanali, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Petty Civil Court judge in favour of the respondent on a claim by him to recover from the appellant possession of a parcel of land situate at Prince Street, Siparia comprising one-half ( ¹/₂) acre more or less known as lot No. 69 Siparia Village Reserve and bounded on the North By Crown Lands and on the South, East and West by Crown Lands (hereinafter referred to as “the parcel of land”).

2 The case for the respondent was that while he was a tenant from year to year of the Sub-Intendant of Crown Lands in respect of the parcel of land tree appellant trespassed and built a house thereon and refused or failed to give up possession despite his repeated requests. The appellant's (special) defence was that the respondent had by agreement for the sum of $100.00 put her into possession with a promise to assign the lease to her at a future date.

3 The respondent testified that he had been a tenant of the Sub-Intendant since 29th March, 1955. He put into evidence without objection a written Agreement of that date between the Sub-Intendant and himself and receipts for rent thereunder for the years 1955 to 1979 inclusive.

4 Under the agreement the tenant had, among others, an obligation to cultivate the land in a husband like manner; and there were restrictions against his putting up any buildings except tool sheds and shelters and against his, parting with possession of the parcel of land. The landlord was at liberty to terminate the agreement at anytime by a 3 month Notice without any liability to compensate the respondent for loss in respect of any crops or of any other loss.

5 The respondent further testified to the following effect: He lived at Alexander Street, in Siparia, He had been in continuous possession of the parcel of land from the 29th March, 1955 cultivating the same. In 1974 he rented out his house at Alexander Street. and went to live in Debe for about 1 ¹/₂ years; but nevertheless continued to go on to the parcel of land during that period. Some time in that year he discovered that the appellant had erected a house theron. When he enquired who gave her permission she declared it was “Government land.” He never entered into any agreement with her and she never had any transaction with him in respect of the parcel of land. He brought the instant proceedings against her in September 1978.

6 The appellant testified to the following effect:

“Some time in 1969 the respondent told her that he was a tenant of the Sub-lntendant but that he had no further interest in the parcel of land as he intended to go into business in Debe and would allow her to build a house on the parcel of land if she would pay him $100.00, — and that he would in due course transfer the ‘tenancy to her. She paid him $100.00, built the house and went into occupation in about: August 1969. She subsequently asked him about the transfer of the tenancy but he told her it would take time.

Three witnesses testified on behalf of the appellant and in support of her claim that, she had been occupying the house on the parcel of land since 1969. One of these witnesses testified that he had assisted in the transportation of the house materials and in the construction of the building.

The learned judge accepted the respondent as a witness of truth and rejected the evidence of the appellant and her witnesses as unreliable. He concluded that:

(a) the respondent was in fact the tenant of the Sub-Intendant of State Lands with respect to the parcel of land as from 29th March, 1955: (b) the respondent was in fact in possession from the year 1955, until 1974; (c) the annual rateable value of the parcel of land did not exceed twelve hundred dollars ($1,200.00); (d) the appellant did not at any time enter into any arrangement whatsoever with the respondent with respect to her occupation of the parcel of land; (e) the appellant never paid to the respondent the sum of $100.00 as alleged or at all; (f) the appellant did not build her house on the parcel of land in 1969; (g) the appellant did not start occupying it in 1969, but in 1974, as alleged by the respondent; (h) the respondent at no time and in no way whatsoever induced or encouraged the, appellant to develop and/or cultivate the parcel of land; (i) the respondent at no time gave the appellant any reason whatsoever to believe that she could enter upon the parcel of land or build her house thereon or cultivate the same; (j) the appellant in fact trespassed upon the parcel of land as alleged by the respondent; and (k) the respondent did request her to leave the said parcel of land subsequent to his discovering the appellant's occupation of same, but she failed to do so.

Accordingly he gave judgment for the respondent with costs in the sum of $76.92; and he ordered a warrant of possession but suspended the issue thereof.

Two grounds of appeal were argued;

• (1) Having regard to the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Petty Civil Court Act, Ch. 4:21 the learned judge had no jurisdiction to try the case; and

• (2) In any, event “the decision of the learned judge is against the weight of the evidence and cannot be supported.”

7 In the Revised Edition of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago the Petty Civil Courts Act (supra) (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) replaces the Petty Civil Courts Ordinance Ch. 3 No.3 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance'').

8 Counsel submitted that since the appellant testified that she purchased the tenancy in the parcel of land and that she was therefore a tenant of the Sub-Intendant's thereon she raised an equitable defence and the learned judge had no jurisdiction to try the case and he ought to have struck out the respondent's claim.

9 The point raised, by...