Rahim and Bros v Central Rent Control Board (Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1951) [1951] EACA 326 (1 January 1951)

APPELLATE CIVIL

Before BOURKE, J.

ABDUL RAHIM AND BROS., Appellants

CENTRAL RENT CONTROL BOARD, Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1951

(Appeal from the decision of the Central Rent Control Board Nairobi)

Assessment of standard rent of several dwellings all part of one premises-Assessment of and apportionment of rent in respect of each dwelling.

The Rent Control Board assessed the rent in respect of that portion of a building let to each of eight tenants, by assessing the standard rent for the whole residential two storeys and then apportioned rent to each part let as a separate dwelling.

The appellant argued that the whole residential two storeys must be regarded as the "premises" within the meaning of section 1 (2) (a) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, and as the standard rent exceeded Sh. 10,000 per annum the tenants were not protected under the Ordinance.

Held (22-6-51).—A dwelling house includes any part of a house let as a separate dwelling<br>and there were eight distinct dwellings and each rental was less than Sh. 10,000. Appeal dismissed.

S. R. Cockar for Appellants.

JUDGMENT.—It seems to me that what the Board has done in this matter is to assess the rent in respect of the portion of the building let to each of the eight tenants, such portion being a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Ordinance and constituting a premises to which the Ordinance applies. The Board, and there is no quarrel with its method of assessment, arrived at an amount of Sh. 1,000 per month as the standard rent for the whole residential two storeys and then ordered apportionment in order to fix the rent of each part let as a separate dwelling. It is argued that none of the tenants is protected under the Ordinance and that the Rent Restriction legislation does not apply at all on the ground that the whole residential two storeys must be regarded as the "premises" within the meaning of section 1 (2) $(a)$ of the Ordinance, and since the standard rent of such premises is Sh. 1,000 per month the whole residential portion of the building falls outside the scope of the Ordinance as bearing a standard rent in excess of Sh. 10,000 per annum. I find the greatest difficulty in following this argument. I repeat that, as I understand it, the Board set out to, and did through its order of apportionment, fix a legal rent in respect of each part of the house let as a separate dwelling. The rent so assessed in respect of each such "dwelling house" comes to less than Sh. 10,000

per annum and so each such premises is covered by the provisions of the Ordinance. With certain exceptions the Ordinance applies "to all premises whether dwelling houses or business premises ..... "A "dwelling house" includes— "any house or part of a house or room let as a separate dwelling....." Quite plainly the Ordinance applies to each of the eight separate lettings and to my mind it is futile to argue that because, if the whole two residential storeys were in fact let as a single and separate dwelling at the standard rent of Sh. 1,000 per month the Ordinance would not apply, that therefore it does not apply where there are in fact eight distinct parts of the two storeys let as separate dwellings, the rent for each being far less than Sh. 10,000 per annum. The Board was clearly right in its decision. The appeal is dismissed.

v.