Abdulla Haji v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Tanganyika National Tourist Board Misc. Civ. App. 5-D-69; 29/9/69; Hamlyn J.

Abdulla Haji v. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Tanganyika National Tourist Board Misc. Civ. App. 5-D-69; 29/9/69; Hamlyn J.

The Dar es Salaam Rent Tribunal fixed standard rent on appellant’s premises on the basis that a sum of Shs. 100,000/- had been spent by the first respondent as tenant on improvements to the premises. The appellant argued before the tribunal that the figure on improvements had been misquoted and that it should have been Shs. 400,000/- and asked for additional rent to be fixed on that basis. the Rent Tribunal refused to vary the rent. On appeal it was argued on behalf of the appellant that there had been a change in the size or character of the premises by reason of improvements which had been virtually carried out by the landlord in view of the fact that appellant had accepted rent at a lesser amount as a result of the value of the improvements accruing to him on expiry of the lease. Therefore the Rent Tribunal ought to have held that special circumstances existed within section 4 (2) (ii) of the Rent Restriction Act and increased the rent.

            Held: (1) “I do not think that these arguments are altogether valid. In the first place, a change in user; that is to say, that where there is a conversion from one user to another – as from business premises to residential or vice versa. Mere improvement by addition of air conditioners or parquet flooring being laid cannot result in a change in character of the premises. Certainly, they are improved, but the character remains the same. Not do I think that the expenditure has been incurred by the landlord on the argument that he has accepted a lesser rent from the respondent. On the evidence, the respondent himself has incurred the expenditure; it may be (though there is meager evidence on the point) that some recompense will be reaped by the appellant in the future, but I take it that the section must be deemed to mean what it says.”

(2) “Section 4(2) (ii) of the Act defines “special circumstances” which may be taken into account in the fixation of standard rent by the tribunal under section 4(2) (a). Even assuming that this Court could find that the expenditure was incurred by the landlord it seems impossible for the tribunal to have made a finding on the evidence before it as to how much of this sum of Shs. 400,000/- consisted of improvements and structural alterations and how much was spent on ordinary or necessary repairs. Had the evidence been somewhat more explicit, the Tribunal could have considered the matter in more detail. What I think happened in this assessment, and this is to some extent supported by the address of the Chairman of the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal, is that the figure of Shs. 100,000/- was admitted as a basic figure, though with some reluctance. There after, the figure was amended to Shs. 400,000/-, and the tribunal refused to allow such figure to enter into its calculation – partly, no doubt, on the assumption that the premises did not warrant acceptance of such figure, and partly because it had nothing before it to show that the sum of Shs. 400,000/- could properly be an assessment of substantial improvements and structural alterations. In acting thus, it was certainly supported by the evidence of the witness Owen, who referred the expenditure to repairs alone; nor is there anything on the record to enable the Tribunal to ascertain on which party lay the responsibility of carrying out repairs; nor is a copy of the lapse exhibited.” (3) Appeal dismissed.