S. G. ARIRAN (APPELLANT)

v.

RASHIDI ADEOJU (RESPONDENT)

(1964) All N.L.R. 506

Division: High Court, Lagos

Date of Judgment: 5th June, 1964

Case Number: Appeal No. LD/34A/64

Before: De Lestang, C.J. of Lagos

Appeal from the Magistrates' Court:

The respondent brought the proceedings, against the appellant, claiming arrears of rent and possession of the room occupied by the appellant at No. 7 Fakolujo Street, Lagos. The appellant resisted the claims on the grounds that the respondent is not his landlord and that he was not in arrear with the rent.

At the trial, evidence show that the premises in question originally belonged to the father of the respondent and the appellant was his tenant until 1953 when he died Isaving four children to inherit the property, the property thus became family property by native law and custom; it was alleged, without sufficient proof, by the aunt, and family head, of the children, that the property was shared amongst them and the room in question was allotted to the respondent; the notice given to the appellant to quit the room was, however, issued at the instance of the aunt and head of the family. The magistrate found on these facts that the respondent was the owner of the room for the purposes of section 19(1)(e) of the Recovery of Premises Act, Cap. 176 and gave judgment in favour of the respondent.

The appellant appealed against the decision and the question is whether on the facts, the respondent is the landlord of the appellant.

HELD:

(1)     One of the things which a landlord must prove before an order for possession may be made is title, if such title, as in this case, has accrued since the letting of the premises. Title cannot be proved by a mere statement of this nature especially when the respondent's witness stated also that it was she who gave notice as landlord, to the appellant, to quit.

(2)     Co-owners or joint owners of family property are not "joint tenants" or "tenants in common" which are modes of tenure well known to English law but unknown to Native law and Custom. It follows from this that to come within the definition of "landlord" the respondent has to prove that he is the person entitled to the immediate reversion of the room occupied by the appellant.

(3)     Where there is a plurality of landlords they must all join in the action. It would have been otherwise if the appellant had attorned tenant to the respondent, which, however, is not the case in this matter.

Appeal allowed.

Act referred to:-

Recovery of Premises Act, Cap. 176, sections 2 and 19(1)(e).

M. A. Kotun, for the Appellant.

B. Ali-Balogun, for the Respondent.

De Lestang, C. J. of Lagos: This appeal arises in the following circumstances. In November 1960 the respondent, alleging to be the owner of a room in No. 7 Fakolujo Street, Lagos, and the landlord of the appellant in respect thereof, brought an action in the Magistrate's Court, Lagos, wherein he claimed four months arrears of rent from the appellant at the rate of 30/- per month and possession of the room on the ground of arrears of rent and personal use.

The appellant resisted the claims on the grounds that the respondent was not his landlord and that he was not in arrear with the rent.

The evidence shows that No. 7 Fakolujo Street belonged to Tijani Adepoju and that the appellant has been a tenant of the room in question for upwards of 25 years. Tijani died in 1953 leaving four children to inherit the property. The respondent is one of the four children. There is evidence that the children's Aunt, who is the head of the family, shared the rooms of the premises between them and that the room occupied by the appellant was allotted to the respondent.

The learned Magistrate found that the respondent was the owner of the room, that rent for four months as claimed was in arrear, and entered judgment for the respondent. He also made an order for possession on both grounds without differentiating between them.

The appellant appealed and applied for leave to adduce further evidence, namely to produce certain receipts for rent. This Court granted leave and referred the case back to the Magistrate's Court to take the additional evidence and to adjudicate afresh on the case. That was in October 1961 and it is deplorable to observe that it was not until November 1963 that the re-adjudication took place when the court below confirmed its previous decision.

The appellant appealed and the principal question for decision is whether the respondent is the landlord of the appellant. The learned Magistrate did not really consider this question. He merely accepted the word of the respondent's Aunt that the room was "now owned" by the respondent and that he was the appellant's landlord. One of the things which a landlord must prove before an order for possession may-be made is his title, if such title, as in this Gase, has accrued since the letting of the premises. See section 19(1)(e) of the Recovery of Premises Act. Title cannot be proved by a mere statement of this nature especially when the witness stated also that it was she who gave notice to quit which indeed is borne out by exhibit 7. Moreover exhibits 5 and 6 show that, contrary to the respondent's evidence, the appellant paid rent to the Aunt in 1954 and 1956. Be that as it may the expression "landlord" is defined in section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act as follows:-