19841213 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19841213 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 13 December 1984
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 13 December 1984
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The tribunal erred in law by increasing rent based on the number of rooms and volume of business, which are not valid grounds under the Rent Restriction Act. The respondent failed to prove that land rates or taxes had increased, and there was no evidence to justify a rent increase. The standard rent remained as previously paid by the appellants, and no statutory basis existed for the increase.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Decision of the tribunal increasing rent is set aside.
- Respondent to pay appellants' costs in this court and in the tribunal below.
02
Material facts
Parties
K. D. Walimohamed
Appellant Counsel: Mr. IakhaNassor Mawji
Appellant Counsel: Mr. IakhaHassan H. Nahodja
Respondent Counsel: Mr. KashumbuguAmounts and remedies
- Monthly Rent First Appellant Before Increase: TZS 400
- Monthly Rent Second Appellant Before Increase: TZS 300
- Monthly Rent First Appellant After Tribunal Increase: TZS 3,000
- Monthly Rent Second Appellant After Tribunal Increase: TZS 2,000
- Purchase Price of Premises (1976): TZS 55,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Rent Tribunal erred in law in increasing rent based on number of rooms and volume of business.
- 02
Whether the respondent proved grounds for rent increase as required by the Rent Restriction Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that the tribunal erred in law by increasing rent based on the number of rooms for the first appellant and the volume of business for the second appellant, which are not valid grounds under the Rent Restriction Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that land rates and service charges had increased and that he needed money to renovate the premises, justifying an increase in rent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 16, Rent Restriction Act, Cap. 479
Rent can only be increased as provided for in the Rent Restriction Act, specifically where land rates, rents, or other taxes payable by the landlord have increased.
- 02
Section 4(1)(a), Rent Restriction Act, Cap. 479
Standard rent is defined as the rent at which the premises were let at the prescribed date, and any increase must be justified under the Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The tribunal erred in law by increasing rent based on the number of rooms and volume of business, which are not valid grounds under the Rent Restriction Act. The respondent failed to prove that land rates or taxes had increased, and there was no evidence to justify a rent increase. The standard rent remained as previously paid by the appellants, and no statutory basis existed for the increase.
Obiter and limits
- The value of business carried on by a tenant cannot be a basis for increase of rent.
- If the premises had been reconstructed to provide more rooms, an application for increase of rent could have been made on that ground, but that was not the case here.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- Decision of the tribunal increasing rent is set aside.
- Respondent to pay appellants' costs in this court and in the tribunal below.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 13 December 1984
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 13 December 1984
CIVIL AI'Jrr:;_t~L rro. 1 Q:i' 1 %4 (From the decir~i'Jn o:c tl1£ rn.strict Court of ;,Toro.:_~oro at j\.forogoro in Rent Ar,:ilication No. 7 cif 19t"32. l .., Tofore }; • 1c;. I.ia.::.faugile, Resident !vhgist:r.a te ). (1) K. D. WAL1IMOHAMED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ar f: 1;; 11'A.?IT S (2) N',\SSOR MAWJI . versus J l! D G E rn E J', T =-=--==--=:::------~===== i\iAINA, J. - The two a_;_,;:-ellants, TC. D. W2.lHrn.ori.flD.Gd. and Hasser ~wji, are tel'."..'.lnts of pr~n:i.m,s ::::ii;,\..,: t3d at plot ."'o. 41 J ,;long Nlali Road within Morofi'Oro ·.L1owm:hj_;:1• 'Che Duit p.,:\:?11,_ise.s sre ownccl by the respondent, Hsssan I-I. N.oh-)1,,0,1. In c1n H;J)lic?tion filed wtth the Rent Tribunal at Morogoro, the :i:•.•f31iorn:'.ent ~,sked for increase of r.;nt. The appellents h0d been pr,yinc; monttly rent of shs. 400/= 3ncJ. shs. 300/=, respectively. The tribw.1r.,l j_ncr ·.2sed. tho rt,;nt to shs. 3,000/= per month _in respect of tt.0 first Fi';)l.1cl:Ltrn:c, and she. 2,000/= 1;-er 1:1onth in respect of the seconr.:; ,.1):,>.::.Lla:1.1t. l'he ar::::,ell<-~nto ,-crE:: Llin:•ti~fied and they are a::•:'0· t Uni:.~• When the respondent pw.~cb.::➔ secl the suit premises in Dacember, 1976 the two appellants 0nd r:mother p·,rson who ha~ no·~ [: __ ,peCtk.'~, were tenants. The first appellant m-,s vD?ini.:: r,1on";l1l;1' ::·,..,n·:_; of shs.
400/= .:,t that time and the second a:_-:,xllL·,,1t·~ v,1, :,~• :,_.:0•:--in2, Gl::.s. 300/= JJ'2:r montb. r-,r: :r·ent. The respondent advanc,:!d tYJO rBa,.:;o:w1 :?or DG\:in,:. :for fulcr•:?c:sG o:~' rent. Firstly, the lane r[,tc:?r-: cmd G8r-,;-j_ce ci::··,r,~er~ h'.:1 1 ~;0Er:, U}:'• 1 ::0concily, he needed money tn reno~te ·~he u·,:,_t :i:)rc::1:i.Es:,;. '.C:ic t::-i.bUl-:t'l 2cceptecl those as valid ree1sons :fm: j_;·.crc~'flC:: of' rerr::. ':'he ·c:r:-:~::,urJ:-:1 slso took into consider2, tion the nu:·0.Ln" o:f !'oo:a::; ,-u:J.t'i. vol~u.e nf' bus:i.i1ess 2s 'I'he first ,1nc1 secm.--H~ .-~row1(:s o:,:' a 1_.;rcul ,:tr::: ·ch:: t thEJ tribunal earred in law increc:,sinc -ch2 r:::,1t or. .l;ir or, consi.dc,1"8 tion of the number of 1 rooms, in respect of ·clle :fir:Jt aprcJ.l8nt £m.d. on the volwu.e of the business cr1rried on by the· Oe(;onc1 1J.p;:ell,--:nt. I thii.1.k: t}lerc is merit in these grounds of a-;:ipe8l. eoo••••••••••••••o•/2 ••• 2 The circumstances under ,vhi.ch r:::mt 1my bs increc:•sed are provided in section 16 of the Rent B0strict:i.on Act, Cap.479. 0ncrJ the tribtwal bas determined standard rent for ;'.!Temi::;es, that rent is bindinG on the tenant and the landlord :md -tbQt cnnnot be incre2sed except 2s provided for in the Rent Rostricti·on A<;:t. I sball r~vert to ·the term as.tandard rent" later in this judc;em.snt. Ths: rent can only be increased
where the land I'""dtes, rzmts or other t3xes payable by the 1.clnlllo:i.."i!_ i.wve increased. In the pre se;;;.-c case, the respondent did not -adduce evic.ence to prove that land rates and other taxes had increased and by ;1ow much.. 'Iha onus was on the :respondent to prove thD.t to the trj_bun:11. '.Chis he £ailed to do. There is no provision anyi,-,here in. thG llcnt Restriction let which perrn.i ts a tribun2l to incre::i.00 :;ho ri:nt :1)£1,Y:::11:,J..-:: by a tenant simply bec,::,use the tenm1.ts I business has incn:n~:c:1. jtz for nuEibc,:· of rooms occupiet by the fir8t ::qipcJJ_;,i:1-c, these 1:,ere the s2.11e 1~Uh1oer of rooms he has occupied since be: becw:.e a ·:;sn:mt o:i: the j_Jrem.ises. '11he respon(~ent hat"'. not rccm.,s-:;rti.ctec~ the prcmiaes to provi,~e more rooms,. If there hau been such r-:: reco!1'3trlil.ction a:n-::. tho rcE:ponc:.ent thought he was entitled to more ren-:; 1 then he wou:,,: have am:iliec: for in.c:re;:,se of rent on that :'.).'.'Ounc1. Dxt; tho 8l-:i•:; )?J'.'G!ilise::i rer-JZ!ine,~ in the same comJ.i tion as when -the c\\i')elJ.:,,n"liB oc.-~u;, ie,'., the;:;; a i; the rent of shs.300/::; am1 400/: respec·biv,,ly. :i:he volt.L1.G o:i:' business oarmot be a basis for 1 increase of rent. The tribw1D.l 0hou1,,_ h:.-.ve c.:::,:c,:,:tr,ircc:"'. wbf,t the st::.:im'..ar,l rent was ~efore even consi :.Grin.:; the increase of rent. Un:~:er
scc·:~ion 4( 1) (a) of the Rent :.<1entric•cion Act, the term 11 s-tandarc'. rent" is define(:. as rent c1eterminec1 by the Tribunal to be the rent at -vvhich the premises were let at the prescribed c:ate. In th., Cc:se of re,TV.ent:Li:;J_ J:~crnisea, the prescribecl c'..,'.·,te is :l:'irst JuJy, 1959 rn1·'. /,,:,_, COiJiaerc:i.:;l )romises it is first January 1965. In tl.,:i_r:, Li_C;:1lic,:::·0io:1 i-c ;;-,~c not b1ow21. whether the suit _premise1:3 were let on the p~~c Ge::tj_i)c!·'. ,.:·,: ·:;3. r.11,_--,a t -chc c,vit:er.ce revealeL1 is that the .:;;_; ·c1J:,ntG '•,ere occu::_iyinr thr rrc;·:liscs in 1976 when ·the respon,:ent purcl1:.: Gs,: the :iousc;, _As alro.(°'.y pointed out, the monthly rent was shs. 4()0/== :m~: shs. 300/= 9 r(;spec·i;i ve ly. If th."¼t was 11 the rent at the p:i~c_scr;ibel~ ,.-l'.1·ce 9, it ,become:., the stan(12rc rent 11 of the suit premisas, m1.,."'. j_·s c::n1:,J.o-c be incre:~1:,e,"'. except as yrovi(;.ec1 for in -the . ' . Bent Restricti_on tct. , .••.•• ~-· ....... /3 ••• 3 for the sake of :,1rgwu.a:n-~, the p;:·e::.,iss1,, rlere:: coi1Dt;:-uctc~~ ,';:1: 1--t after the prescribeJ -:'.:; tc, -tJ-1:.:, c1rn-1unl r.sut, u.n.".er ,c;ection 4 (c) o:C the Rent Act,. c~umot e:,:cer-:t~ fourteen per ccntum of i.:hG it1;,,rket cost of construction. '=:he a pp lie,:, tion fori;r.: :i?D.ed b,r the re spom:ent with ,:h,. the tribunalr~ot show the
H~r~;:e·i:; cost of' con2·~1'V.c·:;ion. Ths1"'G Nas evidence, 1 however, tbr,t ·i;h::: rcsym.·.ont J,urchasec1 the premises for shs. 55,000/= in 1976. If th..'lt ir:1 tnlcen as cost of construction, the ar:?n.u.:il rent, at 14~ is sha.. 7,700/= which is sh.s~ 640/= per month fer the whole house. That m.ea-ns that each of th(o three _·i:;en'.-1J.l'~fJ ,-;oul( pi'ly i:1 bout shs. 220/= per month which is r-ilro::1 i:.'ly losfJ the.1.1 the rent they met be<m paying. before th0 reopon\:ent purcl1I1so-:i. ·(;>c: p1·emi:Jc8, it can be 2.sswnc,1., in the absence of evi,:ence to the co;:itr~,J:'y U1at thG Prnu.isos were let on the I - prescribecl c~ate. Thi,: 1·en-:, which t.b,, <9Pe1J.ant13 were pa~l'ing at that tim.e becomes -the ~"Jt:mc:ar,.~ re1Tli, '.0he triouDal .shouL'. h.:.vr:: c~ismisscd the application fox· :i.ncr,;~rne:: o:'.:' T,,1i-i as thGre 1r.1;::i_f; 11,) basj_8 for such increase. This appeal· is- allor1c,·:. 'ClJ.c .·:ccj_u:Lcm liy ·d1c ·cri"l.n.m&l of inc re a sing thi: rent is sec t1:3L'.e. .T.'hG r2sl)c,::1tGnt ;2;11--:: 11 ~x,1y the appellants 1 costs in thi::1 cow:d; m- 1 in tb.:; t;i•j_lmn::J. b:,:;J.ow. ·, i!,y .: j a l ··.,,1 ~\;\ ~--, \ ~ (w. J. · UINA) ·JUDGE l)3r es Salaam 13 December, 1984 Mr. Iakha :i?or the appellants ?/Ir. Kashumbugu for -~h.:i res~:or1."'.el.1'GG
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.