MUNGADZE v MURAMBIWA 1997 (2) ZLR 44 (S)

Flynote

Landlord and tenant — lease — termination — fixed term lease — whether landlord may terminate lease because he requires premises for his own use

Headnote

The parties entered into a written agreement of lease, in pursuance of which the respondent let to the appellant commercial premises in Harare for a fixed period of five years. Before the expiry of the period, the respondent gave notice of cancellation of the lease, on the genuine grounds that she required the premises to conduct a business of her own, for which she had obtained the necessary licence. In the magistrates court, her action for ejectment was successful, the magistrate holding that she had "good and sufficient grounds" for requiring recovery of the premises.

Held, that the concept of "good and sufficient grounds" is applicable to statutory tenancies, which come into being on the expiration of the lease, either by effluxion of time or in consequence of notice having been duly given. The appellant did not fit into this category of lessee.

Held, further, that though Roman law allowed a lessor to eject a lessee without consent if he required the premises ^e for his own use or purposes, this rule was never received as legal principle in Holland and is not part of our law. It is contrary to all the basic principles of the law of contract. A landlord and tenant are bound by the terms of their contract and a fixed term contract may not be terminated early unless there has been a breach by the tenant. Notice to quit early may not otherwise be given unless the premises have become dangerous or urgently in need of repair and vacation is necessary for that purpose. Even then, the lessee would ordinarily be permitted to ^e resume occupation upon completion of the repairs.