Salim Abdul Karim Noormahamed v Chatpril Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd and Cephas Matandi

The plaintiff leased commercial premises at 79 Chinhoyi Street, Harare, to the first defendant (a registered company) and second defendant (the company's manager until 2015) under a verbal lease agreement. On 3 January 2017, the plaintiff gave the defendants three months' notice to vacate as he intended to use the premises for his own business purposes. The defendants failed to vacate after expiry of the notice period. The defendants alleged the eviction was motivated by their request to reduce rent from $750 to $700, which the plaintiff had rejected, and claimed the plaintiff intended to lease to a new tenant at higher rentals. They also claimed a bigger shop belonging to the plaintiff was vacant which he could have used instead. The plaintiff testified he wanted to operate a bed and mattress selling business (which he had operated there before) to generate additional income for his daughter's education. He produced evidence including shop licence applications and quotations from Bowline Furniture to demonstrate his genuine intentions.

• Whether the plaintiff had established 'good and sufficient grounds' for eviction under section 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations 1983, SI 676 of 1983
• What constitutes 'good and sufficient grounds' for a landlord to recover possession of leased commercial premises
• Whether the onus is on the landlord to prove good and sufficient grounds and whether the tenant's position is relevant to this determination

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff. (1) The 1st and 2nd defendants and all those claiming occupation through them shall vacate 79 Chinhoyi Street, Harare, within fourteen (14) days of service of the order; (2) If defendants fail to comply, the Sheriff for Zimbabwe or deputy is authorized to evict the defendants and all those claiming through them; (3) The 1st and 2nd defendants shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

Where a landlord seeks to evict a tenant from commercial premises under section 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations 1983, the landlord bears the onus of establishing 'good and sufficient grounds' for repossession. The determination of whether such grounds exist focuses on the landlord's position, not the tenant's circumstances. A landlord establishes good and sufficient grounds by demonstrating in good faith, with supporting evidence, that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use. The landlord need not provide exhaustive proof but must show his intentions are genuine and not motivated by prohibited reasons such as seeking higher rent from a new tenant or punishing the tenant for declining a rent increase.

The court observed that 'good and sufficient grounds' is not capable of precise or exhaustive definition and every case depends on its own facts. The court noted the purpose behind the Regulations is to prevent unscrupulous landlords from taking advantage of shortages of commercial premises by increasing tenants' rents unjustifiably. The court emphasized it found the plaintiff's evidence credible, particularly noting he made concessions where necessary (such as volunteering that Bowline Furniture was a tenant at his Marondera property), which enhanced his credibility. The court commented it found the defendants' witnesses 'evasive, prevaricative and slippery' under cross-examination, and found it 'disingenuous' for defendants to paint the plaintiff as greedy given his history of acceding to rent reduction requests.

This case provides important guidance on the application of section 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations 1983 in Zimbabwean landlord-tenant law. It clarifies that: (1) the onus is on the landlord to establish 'good and sufficient grounds' for eviction; (2) the tenant's position is irrelevant to this determination - the court must focus on the landlord's circumstances; (3) a landlord's genuine need to use premises for his own business purposes constitutes good and sufficient grounds; (4) the landlord need only demonstrate good faith and provide some evidence of genuine intentions; (5) verbal leases fall within the purview of the rent regulations. The judgment reinforces protection for landlords' property rights while maintaining the regulatory framework designed to prevent exploitation of tenants during premises shortages.