Afra Stores and others v. Sauti, Misc. Civ. App. 10-D-71; 10/9/71; Saidi, C. J.
The respondent acting as attorney for the original tenant of a number of buildings belonging to Karimjee Properties Ltd., filed an application before the Rent Tribunal seeking the standard rent in respect of premises including a hotel, the Splendid Hotel. The appellants who were the respondents in the application took over he management of he hotel from Ascot Ltd. who at that date was paying Shs. 1,500/= per month as rent, but the appellants obligation was to pay rent of 3,000/= per month. The respondent asked the Tribunal to determine and/or approve the current rent of Shs. 3,000/= as the standard rent. The Tribunal assessed it at Shs. 2500/=. The appellants appealed against the assessment.
Held: (1) “The Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act 1966 brought all business premises under control. The prescribed date for ascertaining the standard rent of recently controlled business premises was fixed at January 1st 1965. Section 4 (1) (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, as amended, provides that: - “The expression ‘standard rent’ in relation to any premises means – (a) a rent determined by a tribunal to be the rent at which the premises were let at the prescribed date”.
the prescribed date in this respect is January 1st 1965, as the evidence shows the rent for Splendid Hotel was Shs. 1,500/= in November 1964 and was the same for three years before. The evidence seems to establish that the hotel was not let on January 1st 1965 as the rent then payable on that date would be the standard rent. Learned counsel on both sides had asked the Tribunal to accept the rent paid by Accot Ltd. the last tenant as the standard rent. Had Ascot Ltd. continued in occupation they would have paid Shs. 1,500/= as rent on January 1st 1965. I think the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of standard rent is sound in the circumstance.” (2) Appeal allowed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.