Puckerin v Lemaitre

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1963
• Neutral Citation: TT 1963 CA 59
• Docket Number: No. 400 of 1963
• Date: 09 October 1963

Court of Appeal

Wooding C.J, Phillips J.A

No. 400 of 1963

Puckerin

and

Lemaitre

Appearances:

Mr. Karl Hudson Phillips appeared for the appellant

The respondent appeared in person.

Rent restriction - Assessment of rent — Retrospective order made

Practice and procedure - Courts — Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction to entertain appeal where the sole matter involved is the quantum sanctioned by the Rent Assessment Board as an increase over and above the determined standard rent

Facts: Application was made by respondent for an increase in the standard rent of premises the subject of a tenancy held of her by the appellant. Respondent alleged in her application that she had incurred expenditure on substantial improvements. Premises had been assessed previously at $16.50. Appellant was currently paying $30 per month. Rent Assessment Board accommodated respondent's application. Retrospective order was made for a period of three years and 8 months. Appellant appealed.

Application was made by the respondent for an increase on the standard rent of the premises the subject of a tenancy held of her by the appellant — Application accommodated — Appellant Appealed

Held: A Board, asked to make any increase in the rent payable in circumstances such as this, should give some consideration to the question whether it is right and proper to take away the rights which a person has through having paid rent illegally demanded of him by backdating its order, thereby validating the increased rent, whether wholly or in part, and thus or “pro tanto” relieving him of his liability for its recovery. It is an essential condition of the landlord to get an increase in the rent that the landlord must have increased expenditure in effecting the particular improvements on which his claim is based. Appellant did not incur any expenditure. Appeal allowed. Matter referred back for re-determination “de novo”. Respondent to pay costs.

Section 6(12) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Full Court from any order of a Board and the procedure in respect of any such appeal shall be such as is laid down in the Summary Courts Ordinance. Appeal allowed. Matter referred back for redetermination “de novo”. Respondent to pay costs.

Wooding, C.J.

1 An application was made by the respondent on this appeal for an increase in the standard rent of premises the subject of a tenancy held of her by the appellant. The premises had been assessed previously in the sum of $16.50 per month. That was the standard rent, and that remained the standard rent and must continue so to remain unless and until an order varying it is properly made by the Board. In fact, however, the appellant was paying $30.00 per month by way of rent from the commencement of his tenancy on 2nd February 1950. At that date, that is to say, at the time when the tenancy commenced, he was not ware that there had been a previous determination of the standard rent. But at some stage, it is not explicitly mentioned when, he discovered this fact and filed an action to recover the excess rent paid...