{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f267\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f268\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f270\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f271\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f272\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f273\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f274\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f275\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa72\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Style 1;}{\s16\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa72\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Style 2;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid401872\rsid1003470\rsid1657438\rsid1668467\rsid2588662\rsid3816729\rsid3824622\rsid4406297\rsid4469357\rsid4661418\rsid5121737\rsid6227629\rsid6376863\rsid7042724\rsid7633122\rsid8810667 \rsid9390050\rsid9590124\rsid10040130\rsid10551650\rsid10559351\rsid10561177\rsid11564944\rsid12543741\rsid12734952\rsid12846969\rsid12995151\rsid14550207\rsid14770550\rsid15150714}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\author maltungtung_l} {\operator maltungtung_l}{\creatim\yr2009\mo10\dy22\hr9\min7}{\revtim\yr2010\mo2\dy19\hr16\min5}{\version26}{\edmins191}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords1436}{\nofchars8191}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws9608}{\vern24689}} \paperw11907\paperh16840\margl0\margr0\margt0\margb0 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot4406297 \fet0\sectd \psz9\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid10559351\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2 \pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10559351 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 [2000]}{\fs24\insrsid12846969 }{ \fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 1 FLR 219}{\b\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\b\fs24\insrsid10040130\charrsid12846969 IN THE }{\b\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 HIGH COURT OF FIJI \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4406297 {\b\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 KAMLESH KAUR}{\b\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\b\fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 v}{\b\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 JAGENDRA KARAM SINGH \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4406297 {\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 High Court}{\fs24\insrsid10559351\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 Civil Jurisdiction}{\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Prakash, J \par }{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 10 November, 2000}{\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 \par H}{\fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 BC}{\fs24\insrsid10040130\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 0}{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 152}{\fs24\insrsid10040130\charrsid12846969 /}{\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 00}{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 L \par }{\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Land Transfer}{\i\fs24\insrsid401872\charrsid12846969 }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Act Section 169 application -}{\i\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 whether Notice to Quit needs to be personally served upon the tenant - whether service to agent is sufficient - whether equitable right of estoppel available to defendant - whether tenancy for life or monthly \par }{\fs24\insrsid15150714\charrsid12846969 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 This is an application by the Plaintiff}{\fs24\insrsid15150714\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 under section 169 of the Land Transfer Act for the Defendant to show cause why he should not give possession to the plaintiff of the premises occupied by him. One of the two issues involved relates to the validity of the notice to quit which was not served pers o nally to the Defendant but was served on his solicitors instead. The other issue is whether the Plaintiff was estopped from forcing the Defendant to give possession in light of the fact that he was led by the late husband of the Plaintiff to believe that he had a life tenancy. \par }{\fs24\insrsid15150714\charrsid12846969 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 HELD}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 - (1) The notice to quit need not be served personally upon the tenant. It may be served upon his agent and when so served it is unnecessary to prove that it actually came to his knowledge; it is sufficient if the facts of the agency is established. \par }{\fs24\insrsid15150714\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 (2) This a monthly tenancy and if there was any tenancy for life or for a term exceeding one year there should have been a registered lease under section 54(1) of the Land Transfer Act. As such, there can be no right of estoppel. \par }{\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Defendant has not shown cause why he should be allowed to remain on the land and is evicted. \par }{\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Cases referred to in judgment \par dist }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Val}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 labh Das Premjii v Vinod Lal & O}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 rs}{\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 (FCA Civil App 70/}{ \fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 74) \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 appl }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Ganga Devi v Gurmel}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Singh & Anor}{\fs24\insrsid3816729\charrsid12846969 (Civil App 37/}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 82) \par dist }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Maharaj v Chand}{\fs24\insrsid9590124\charrsid12846969 [}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 1986] 3 All ER 107 \par dist }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid9590124\charrsid12846969 Lila Wati}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 , Raj Pal & Madan Lal}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 v Alitia Vakaraubula}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 40 FLR 107 13 July 1994 \par appl }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Subramani & Maria v Dharam Sheela & Ors}{\fs24\insrsid6227629\charrsid12846969 ABU}{\fs24\insrsid7042724\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid9590124\charrsid12846969 56}{\fs24\insrsid7042724\charrsid12846969 /}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 81 \par }{\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 V}{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 ipul Mishra}{\i\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 for the Plaintiff}{\i\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Samuel Ram for the Defendant \par }{\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 5 October 2000}{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid10559351\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12995151 {\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 JUDGMENT}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4406297 {\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Prakash, J \par }{\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 This is an application by the Plaintiff, via a Summons dated 9 April 2000 for the Defendant to show cause why he should not give up possession to the Plaintiff of the premises situated on the land contained in Certificate of Title}{ \fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Vol . 52 Folio 5115 being that piece of land known as "Nanukudrala" (part of) containing twenty three perches and half a perch situated in the District of Bulu in the Island of Viti Levu being occupied by him. The Summons is issued under Section 169 of the La nd Transfer Act. There is no dispute that the summons complies with the provisions of section 170 of the relevant act. \par }{\fs24\insrsid5121737\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Affidavits have been filed in support and in opposition. There is not much dispute with the material facts in issue. The Defendant has be en a monthly tenant of the subject premises for some time. He was paying monthly rental of $330.00 for the down-stairs premises and $110.00 for the upstairs premises of the said building. By letter dated 4th December 1999 from the Plaintiff}{ \fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s solicitors th e Defendant was informed that the rental will be increased to $475.00 per month for the downstairs portion (Pacific Travel Service) and $200.00/month for the upstairs portion (Computer Centre) from 1 January 2000. By letter dated 19 January 2000 the Defen dant}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s solicitors S.K Ram, among other things, asked the Plaintiff to reconsider the rental increase due to past relation of the respective parties. In response the Plaintiff via her solicitors, issued a notice to quit dated 4 February 2000, giving the Defe ndant one month to vacate the premises or face eviction proceedings. \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\ul\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Defect in the Notice to Quit \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Defence Counsel has questioned the validity of the notice to quit. It says it was not addressed to the defendant. It was served on }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 the Defendant}{ \fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 s solicitors on 5/2/}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 2000. This is not denied. In his affidavit in response (para iv) the defendant states "that no notice was served on me." However, this is not the end of the matter. He does not state that he was not aware of the Notice, or that it was not brought to his attention by his solicitors. In paragraph (iii) of their affidavit he deposes: "I am advised by lawyers that the letter marked as Annexure "D" was received by his office. At that time my lawyers did not have any instructions to accept service of a notice of eviction on my behalf. Their instructions were to simply give the reply marked as annexure "C"}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 "}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 . The Court finds these assertions rather surprising. \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 If a reply was to be received to the Annexure "C" in which the Defence Counsel asked for a reconsideration of the rental increase due to past relation; where was the res}{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 ponse to be directed? Annexure "C"}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 did not state that further correspondence on the mat}{\fs24\insrsid7042724\charrsid12846969 t}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 er was to be directed personally to the Defendant. In looking at the whole circumstances of the dealings between the parties the Court finds that the Defendant}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s solicitor was an agent of the Defendant. As stated in Halsbury}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s (4th Edition, Vol. 27 para 197: \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1657438 {\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 "The notice to quit need not be served personally upon the tenant. It may be served upon his agent, and when so served it is unnecessary to prove that it}{\fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 actually came to his knowledge}{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 ; it is sufficient if the fact of the agency is established. The spouse, or a member of the domestic staff, of the tenant at the tenant}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s dwelling house, whether}{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 this is on or off the dem}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 ised premises, is an implied agent to receive a notice to quit, although the tenant can give evidence to rebut the implication. Apart from any question of agency, the fact that the notice has been delivered to the tenant}{ \fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s spouse or servant raises a strong presumption that it has reached the tenant, especially if an explanation of the notice was given when it was delivered. The presumption can only be rebutted by proof that the notice did not come to the tenant}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s knowledge at all." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4406297 {\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The defendant has not rebutted such presumption. The case of }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Vallabh Das Premiji v Vinod Lal & Others}{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 (FCA Civil App 70/}{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 1974) is not relevant to the point in issue here. In that case the lack of proof of the date of service was in issue. As was suggested by the Court of Appeal in }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Ganga}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 Dei v Gurmel Si}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 n}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 gh }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 and Another}{\fs24\insrsid7633122\charrsid12846969 (Civil App.}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 37 of 1982) we should not take too technical an approach to a Notice to Quit. \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\ul\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The issue of the Equitable right of the Defendant \par }{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The next issue raised on behalf of the Defendant was the question of estoppel. The basis of this is that the Defendant claims that he was called to be a tenant of the premi ses by Gurudayal Singh the late husband of the Plaintiff Ex}{\fs24\insrsid1657438\charrsid12846969 ecutor and Trustee. He claims Mr}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 . Singh was a good friend of his and they treated each other like brothers. He let him in as a tenant in the 1960}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s and told the Defendant he could be a tenant for a s long as he wanted to be. He was led to believe that he had a lifetime tenancy. He further claimed he did all the repairs and renovations required. He also claims that the late Gurudayal Singh owed him a substantial amount for airline tickets. \par }{\fs24\insrsid14770550\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 The cases of }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 Maharaj v Ch}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 and}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 [}{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 1986] 3 All E.R. 107 (PC), and }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Lila Wati and Others v Alitia Vakaraubula }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 40 FLR 107 were cited in support of an equity arising. The case of }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Maharaj v Chand}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 concerned a purely personal right}{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 }{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 arising out of a promissory or equitable estoppel between a man and his de facto spouse. In }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Lila Wati & Others}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 the case also involved a relationship of husband and wife where the wife had established an equitable right to remain on the property. \par }{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 This case involves a monthly tenancy of commercial premises. If there was any tenancy for life or for any term exceeding one year there should have been a registered lease under section 54(1) of the Land Transfer}{ \fs24\insrsid12995151\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Act. \par }{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The Defendant does not question the indefeasibility of the Plaintiff}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s title to the land in question. As such the Plaintiff}{ \fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s title is not subject to any unregistered encumbrances (see }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Subarmani and Maria v Dharam Sheela and}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 three Others}{\fs24\insrsid9390050\charrsid12846969 , FCA Civil App.}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 56 of 1981). The Defendant submits that there is a defence and counter-claim. There are allegations that the late Gurudayal Singh, whose estate the Plaintiff administers, owed some monies f}{\fs24\insrsid14550207\charrsid12846969 or airline tickets. Even if Mr.}{\fs24\insrsid12734952\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Gurudayal Singh did owe the Defendant some monies, this does not question the indefeasibility of the Plaintiff}{\fs24\insrsid10561177\charrsid12846969 '}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 s title. The Defendant would have had}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12543741\charrsid12846969 }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 other recourse to recover such monies. There was apparently a close personal relationship between Gurudayal Singh and the Defendant. However the basic fact remains that what the Court is dea ling with is a monthly tenancy. The Defendant himself admits that he did modifications and repairs and Mr. Gurudayal Singh would adjust it in my}{\fs24\insrsid12543741\charrsid12846969 rents (para 12 affidavit of 29/08/}{ \fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 00). He also deposes that usually if any increases in rent were made it was done by mutual understanding (para 17). A distress for arrears of rent was also issued by the Plaintiff in May 1998.}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid10551650\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The Court is appreciative of the fact that the Defendant has operated his travel service and computer business from the said premises for a long time. He may be performing some community service by assisting illiterate and poor people. However, this is his prerogative. There have been increases in rent previously. The Plaintiff landlord is seeking further increases. The Defendant is refusing to pay the increased rental. A Notice to Quit has been served. \par }{\fs24\insrsid10551650\charrsid12846969 \par }{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 The Court is appreciative of the range of authorities cited and submissions by both Counsels. In considering the principles involved and the facts deposed the Court finds that the Defendant ha s not shown cause why he should not vacate the premises. An Order for possession is granted. \par }{\fs24\insrsid10551650\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6376863 {\i\fs24\insrsid4469357\charrsid12846969 Application fo}{\i\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 r possession granted}{\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 . \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10559351 {\fs24\insrsid10559351\charrsid12846969 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10559351 {\b\fs24\insrsid4406297\charrsid12846969 Mereseini R Vuniwaqa \par }}