Mrs. Mary Garatakle v. Serini Mroso Civ. App. 9-A-69; 22/1/70; Platt J.

Mrs. Mary Garatakle v. Serini Mroso Civ. App. 9-A-69; 22/1/70; Platt J.

The appellant landlady claimed that the order given by the Vice chairman of the Rent Tribunal, delivered on the 6^th December 1969, was given without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The order in question read as follows: - “The tenant in this case has been moved by trick i.e. to say that the tenant was asked to leave on the understanding that the house was going to undertake repairs. The tenant left and the landlady, the Respondent moved in. it is now agreed that the Landlady should look for a reasonably equivalent accommodation for the tenant. The tenant was paying Shs. 45/-. Per month and the house to be secured must be within that range. The Landlady/Respondent is given up to 3^rd January 1970 to secure the said accommodation otherwise the tenant /applicant will be asked to file eviction proceedings."

            Held: (1) “There is no doubt that, since the amendment of the Rent Restriction Ordinance Cap. 479 by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) (No. 2) act of 1966, that the powers of the Tribunal were confined to matters concerning the fixing, increase and decrease, apportionment, or the inclusion of service charges from the operating date of the standard rent of premises coming within the Act. (See section 7 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (n) (o) (p)). It will also be seen that the remaining powers of the old Rent Boards were given to the Court of a resident Magistrate. The Tribunal is not empowered to investigate complaints of other matters of a civil nature outside its jurisdiction which ought to be brought before the court of a Resident Magistrate. At any rate, it is quite clear that the dispute between the parties in this case ere not within the powers of the Tribunal. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside tin its entirety.” (2) “There is the question of costs. Learned Counsel for the appellant claims full costs, since the respondent had commenced the proceedings in the Rent Tribunal and not the court of a Resident Magistrate. On the other hand, the respondent claims that he had gone to the court and was informed that application he should make. I do not know whether he was misled in this matter or not. But it may well be that the respondent is not entirely to blame. It is one of those difficult cases where the landlady has not been at fault and the respondent/tenant has probably not known his rights. In these circumstances, I think it would be fair to reduce some of the appellant’s costs. I award her two/third of the costs of the appeal. The fees of the respondent’s application to the Rent Tribunal will be returned to him, and in order to facilitate the parties in getting the matter dealt with by the proper forum, the respondent may bring this proceedings in the court of a Resident Magistrate (not District Court) without payment of fees.” (3) “I think it will also be of advantage if the proceeding were commenced

By way of complaint under section 11 B of the Act of 1966 which may have the effect of avoiding some delay or involving the respondent in too many technicalities under Civil Procedure Code. the learned Magistrate dealing with the case will follow the procedure set down in section 11 B(3) & (4) as well as 11 0 (2) Having investigated the respondent’s complaint, he may give such order as the justice of the case may require.” (4) Appeal allowed.