Sachak v. Ferdinand Kabuye. Civ. App. 3-TANGA-68; 10/4/69; Platt J.

Sachak v. Ferdinand Kabuye. Civ. App. 3-TANGA-68; 10/4/69; Platt J.

The respondent-tenant claimed “determination of House Rent” before the Rent Tribunal, Tanga. He admitted that the house had been let at the prescribed date at Shs. 150/- and that his present rent was the same. He testified that the house was old and with poor drainage. The appellant – landlord claimed to have repaired the premises in 1962 and 1965. After viewing the premises, the Vice- Chairman made an order assessing the rent at a reduced figure of Shs. 100/-, because the condition of the premises was deplorable, the house old and ill-maintained and situated in the backyard. The issues before the court were whether the Vice – Chairman was legally entitled to reduce the standard rent, and if so, whether there was sufficient evidence before him for him to do so.

Held: (1) “Assuming that the order was made in the exercise of the discretion of the Tribunal, guidance may be found as to the approach of an appellate court in the observations of Worley V. P. (as he then was) – HAYMONG V. WELLS (1952) E.A.C.A. 209 at pp. 212 and 213; “The power given to the Board is discretionary and a Court will not lightly interfere with its exercise provided it is satisfied that the powers had been used judicially. Bu this does, I think, entail that there should be sufficient material upon the record to show that there has been a judicial and not an arbitrary exercise of discretion.” With respect, I adopt that point of view. I doubt if there was, in this case, sufficient material upon the record. Although it was clear that the premises had been let before 1959, there was no evidence as to the real age of the building. As far as disrepair is concerned, the allegations set out in the application were not substantiated in the evidence, apart from poor drainage. It is not clear on whom the fault laid for disrepair in any case, (See section 29). On the other hand, the landlords claim to have renovated the premises as recently as 1965. As far as the record went, such allegations as the tenant relied upon were disputed. In these circumstances, the learned Vice Chairman was forced to see the premises for himself and it is here that … a report from an independent source would have been of the greatest help to him ….. at any rate, having seen the premises, the Vice Chairman decided that they were old and deplorably maintained. They were badly sited and merited a reduction in rent. The question arises whether the Vice Chairman ought to have relied upon his own view of the premises to decide the issue. It was said by this own view of the premises to decide the issue. It was said by this Court in FATEHALI ALI PEERA v. ONORATA DELLA SANTA DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPEAL 10 OF 1968, that it is against natural justice for a Tribunal to decide a case on a point noted by it, as a result of its own efforts, and not specifically communicated to the parties so as to allow them an opportunity for contraction. A similar view was expressed in R. v. PADDINCTON & St. MARYLEBONE RENT TRIBUNAL, exparte BELL, LONDON & PROVINCIAL PROPERTIES LTD. (1949) 1 All E.R. 720 at p. 727, and relied upon in Fatehali’s case. With respect, I am of the same opinion. In the instant case, it was not really clear what the Tribunal was actually deciding – at any rate, I am not sure the landlord knew what was in the Tribunal’s mind. It was not clear which, if any, of the discretionary provisions was being acted upon. In these circumstances, it was only fair that the Vice Chairman should have made known his views or called evidence which the landlord could then have contradicted if he wished. I doubt whether it can be said that without sufficient material upon the record, that it was satisfactory for the Vice Chairman to fill the gap in the evidence by his own views. This doubt is further enhanced when one sees that the Vice Chairman sat alone unaided by other members of the Tribunal. This may be permitted under section 6(5) of the Ordinance, but without the broad base which is designed generally for the Tribunal, the judicial exercise of discretion ought to be clearly demonstrated.” (2) Ruling of Vice –Chairman Set aside. Standard rent declared to be 150/- until such time as it is properly reduced.