Hamblin v Samuel et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 17 November 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 CA 137
• Docket Number: No. 421 of 1966
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 17 November 1966

Court of Appeal

Wooding, C.J.; Phillips, J.A.; Fraser, J.A.

No. 421 of 1966

Hamblin

and

Samuel et al

Appearances:

Rent Restriction - Standard rent determined — Landlord claimed dwelling-houses excluded from the operation of the Rent Assessment Board — Respondents were tenants of 2 several “dwelling houses” in a building owned by the appellant. Applied to the Rent Assessment Board to determine their standard rent — Appellant claimed that dwelling houses were excluded from the operation of the Rent Restriction Ordinance — Board however proceeded to and did determine the standard rent. Appellant appealed — The new basement apartments in which the respondents lived were part of a building the whole of which was not new — They were therefore disqualified for exclusion by the Rent Restriction (Exclusion of Premises) Order from the operation of the Ordinance. Although the appellant established that the basement structure was not originally constructed for human habitation, the new converted basement apartments could not be declared fit for human habitation — Appellant was therefore not entitled to claim that the dwelling houses came into being as a result of “the making or conversion into a building which is fit for human habitation of a structure or building not originally constructed for human habitation” — Appeal accordingly dismissed.

Wooding, C.J.

1 The respondents being tenants of two several “dwelling houses” in a building owned by the appellants at No.28 Belle Vue Road, Long Circular, applied to the Port of Spain Rent Assessment Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) to determine their standard rent. The appellant objected ‘in limine’ that the two dwelling houses came into being in the year 1962 as a result of “the making or conversion into a building which is fit for human habitation of a structure or building not originally constructed for human habitation.” If she was right, then the dwelling house are excluded from the operation of the Rent Restriction Ordinance by clause 2 of the Rent Restriction (Exclusion of Premises) Order, 1954, to which we shall hereafter refer as the Ordinance and the Order respectively. Perhaps we should add that we have referred to the rented premises as dwelling houses because each is a part of a building separately let and was being used as a dwelling. They were therefore dwelling houses as defined by the Ordinance.

2 The Order excludes from the operation of the Ordinance all new buildings the erection of which was or is completed on or after February 12 1994. To that end it provided that –

• “(a) the erection of a new building means –

  • (i) the erection of a building on land which was vacant immediately prior to the date on which the erection of such building was commenced; or

  • (ii) the re-erection, wholly or partially, of any building of which two or more outer walls have been pulled down or burnt down at least to the level of the ground floor of such building; or

  • (iii) the re-erection, wholly or partially, of a frame building after the same has been so far pulled down or burnt down as to leave only the framework of the lower storey; or

  • (iv) the making or conversion into a building which is fit for human habitation of any structure or building not originally constructed for human habitation;

• (b) the erection of a new building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the first tenant or occupier enters into possession of the said buildings.”

3 For the purpose of her objection the appellant relied on paragraph(a)(iv) quoted above but, on their interpretation of the Order, the Board rejected it for the reasons following:

1

that the Order applied to a building and not to a part only, which the whole of the new rented accommodation factually was; 2. that assuming the Order did apply to a part of a building, the onus was on the appellant to prove the requisite facts to bring it within the terms of the Orders but she had failed to prove either a) that it had been made or converted from a structure or building not originally constructed for human habitation, or b) that it is fit for human habitation.

4 Accordingly, the Board proceeded to and did determine the standard rent.

5 As regards the facts, the Board found that in 1944 the appellant erected a one-storeyed building on her lot of land which sloped downwards at the back, so that the supporting pillars were about 3' high in the front and about 7' high in the rear. Later, in or about the year 1962, she excavated under the house, digging down so as to bet a uniform level of land about 10' below the building, at the same time replacing the pillars supporting the building. Having thus got an area cleared, she concreted the floor and thereafter built two apartments each with its own kitchen. The height from floor to ceiling was 9' 6” (actually, after the Boards view of the premises, evidence was called to show that the height as observed was no more than 7' 8”). The Board also found that a plan for the proposed new construction had been submitted to the “competent authority' but that it was not approved. By the competent authority the Board must however have meant the landlord of the lot on which the building stood. According to the evidence, it was he who refused to sign in endorsement of the plan, which is an essential prerequisite for submission to the local Health Authority for approval.

6 In evidence the appellant said to the Board that when she erected the building in 1944 she had thought then of converting what we may call the basement structure “into a place for a person to live in”. It was for this reason that they held on their interpretation of certain dicta of the former full Court in Gibson v. Martin (1961) 3 W.I.R. 335, that she had failed to prove that the converted basement structure was not originally constructed for human habitation. Further, after they had visited the premises evidence was put on record that the ventilation...