Ladack v. Salimin, Misc. Civ. App. 1-Dodoma-71; 3/5/72; Kwikima, Ag. J.

 Ladack v. Salimin, Misc. Civ. App. 1-Dodoma-71; 3/5/72; Kwikima, Ag. J.

The applicant claimed in the Dodoma Rent Tribunal that the rent he was paying for the shop-cum-dwelling house should be reduced from 325/- to 15/-. The Tribunal granted his request after visiting the site of the premises. The defendant appealed against the decision.

            Held: (1) “Although from the wording of its ruling the Tribunal claims to have considered the whole case, it is clear that only the appearance of the suit premises was the prime factor. Otherwise the Tribunal would not have failed to investigate the appellant’s contention that the rent as on 1^st January 1965 was Shs. 300/= According to S. 4(1) (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, Shs. 300/= was the standard rent of the suit premises.” (2) “The respondent’s application for reduction of rent was based on the consideration that the house was built of mud bricks. The Tribunal visited the suit premises and observed first that they were dilapidated and second that there was a co-tenant occupying the other portion of the premises who was paying only Shs. 170/=. The Tribunal has been held by this curt to be a quasi-judicial body which must approach its task judicially. So that when the Tribunal embarked on a visit to the suit premises, it could only do so properly if such visit had been requested by one of or both the parties. Furthermore, the appellant should have been given opportunity o controvert the Tribunal when it was noting its observation. (Sachak v. Kabuye 1969 H.C.D. 292, Govind v. David 1971 H.C.D. 241). To fail to adhere to such practice as the Tribunal did in this case is to fail to act judicially” (3) Appeal allowed, case remitted to tribunal for judicial reconsideration.