Prasad v Kumar [2002] FJHC 42; Hbc0499J.2001 (27 March 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

CIVIL ACTION HBC 499 OF 2001S

Between:

PARKASHNI PRASAD
(f/n Tara Chand)
Plaintiff

and

DHIREND KUMAR
(f/n Chandrika Prasad)
Defendant

Plaintiff in Person
R. Naidu for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

These are summary proceedings for possession of land brought by the registered owner of the land under the provisions of Section 169 of the Land Transfer Act (Cap. 131).

The demised premises were let to the Defendant on a 1 year lease which commenced on 1 November 2000. There is no provision for renewal in the lease and paragraph 2(j) is a clause requiring the Defendant to return the premises to the landlord (now, the Plaintiff) at the end of the 12 months period.

In the circumstances the lease has expired and no question of the Fair Rents Act (Cap 269) can arise. In any event nothing has been placed before me by the Defendant to support the unreasonable possibility that the premises do not fall within the exemption provided by Section 24 (b) of the Act.

In my view whether or not the various notices to quit given by the Plaintiff were valid or sufficient is not now relevant, given that the lease has expired.

It was not suggested on behalf of the Defendant that there was any other basis upon which he might continue to have a right to remain in the premises following the expiry of the lease.

I am not satisfied that the Defendant has discharged the onus placed upon him by Section 172 of the Land Transfer Act and accordingly I order that possession be given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff forthwith.

M.D. Scott
Judge

27 March 2002