Pardhan v. Tailor. Civ. App. 8-M-66; 14/4/67; Mustafa J.

Pardhan v. Tailor. Civ. App. 8-M-66; 14/4/67; Mustafa J.

The appellant applied to the Rent Restriction Board at Bukoba against the respondent for vacant possession. Rent had not been paid for 18 months. The Board, in its Ruling states; “Further, because of shortage of houses in the town, the prayer for vacant possession is equally rejected.”

            Held: “Learned counsel for appellants has urged before me that since it is not in dispute that the respondent has not paid rent for a long period, the Board was wrong not to order vacant possession. He also states that it does not appear that there was sufficient.

Material for the Board to find as to whether it would be reasonable for it to make an order for possession in terms of the provisions of section 19 (2) of the Rent Restriction Act. He suggests that the matter in so far as the question of possession is concerned, should be referred back to the Board for its consideration. However, I believe that the Board did deal with the matter as regards the question of vacant possession and there is enough evidence for the Board to find that it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to grant the appellants vacant possession. The Board took into consideration the shortage of houses in the town and I cannot say that there is no or no sufficient evidence before the Board for it to refuse to make an order for possession or that its finding on the score was so unreasonable as to call for interference.”