A. Musaji v. R. Bhagwanji and Tanga Upholsterers Misc. Civ. App. 2-T-69; 27/1/70; Biron J.
The Tanga Rent Tribunal of its own motion decided to determine the standard rent of the premises occupied by the two respondents who were renting rooms on a two-storey building owned by the appellant landlord. They were charged Shs. 200/- and 175/- respectively for each month of rent. Other tenants renting exactly the same type of rooms on the same building ere charged Shs. 150/- each per month. The Rent tribunal, on the ground that this was discriminatory reduced the respondents’ rent to Shs. 150/-. On appeal the landlord argued that the tribunal had no right in law to determine the rents which were “standard rent” because they were determined at the prescribed date (the 1st January 1965) by virtue of the Rent Restriction Act 1962.
Held: (1) “It is not in dispute that the respondent, Mr. Bhangwanji, was paying Shs. 200/- per month at the prescribed date, whilst Mr. Parmar, the proprietor of the Tanga upholsterers, was paying Shs. 175/- per month at such date. Pausing there, those
Rentals would constitute the standard rent, and neither court nor tribunal has any right to determine any other figure as the standard rent, unless it finds, as provided for in section 4 of the Principal Act sub-section (2) sub-paragraph (b):- ….. that the rent at the prescribed date was a nominal, fictitious or collusive rent, in which case a Tribunal – and gain I quote from the same sub-paragraph – shall have power to determine a rent at the prescribed date as being of such amount as the Tribunal thinks proper having regard to the rents at which premises of a similar character in the neighborhood were let at the prescribed date. The Tribunal in its ruling has made no finding to the effect that in its view the rent at the prescribed date which either of the two respondents was paying was nominal, fictitious or collusive. (2) “The Tribunal also has a discretion, as provided for in sub-paragraph (a) of the same sub-section, to alter, and again I quote:- whether by way of increase or reduction the amount of the standard rent as ascertained in accordance with sub-section (1). In the case of any premises in regard to which a Tribunal is satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it would be fair and reasonable to alter, whether by way of increase or reduction etc. again the Tribunal has made no finding that there were any such special circumstances in this case. The only reason behind the determination given is that it was discriminatory to charge different rents for similar shops in the same premises. If that constitutes a valid ground for lowering the high rents, it could equally validly constitute a ground for raising the lower rents.” (3) 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.