Thomas v Makhan

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Phillips, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1977
• Neutral Citation: TT 1977 CA 8
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 220 of 1975
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 18 February 1977

Court of Appeal

Phillips, J.A.; Rees, J.A.

Magisterial Appeal No. 220 of 1975

Thomas

and

Makhan

Appearances:

K. Hudson-Phillips, S.C. and T. Guerra for the appellant.

Mrs. V. Alcala for the respondent.

Real Property - Landlord and tenant — Rent.

Phillips, J.

1 By summons No. 22 of 1974 a tenant instituted proceedings against his landlord before the Rent Assessment Board (hereafter called ‘the Board’) for the determination of the standard rent of a parcel of building land (hereafter called ‘the land’) measuring 50 ft. x 135 ft. and situate at 76 John Street, Montrose, Chaguanas. The landlord raised what was referred to as a special defence, viz.: “that this matter has already been determined by this Rent Board in Application No. 268 of 1960 and confirmed by the high Court of Justice in Action No. 901 of 1963 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 37 of 1966”. Treating this defence as a plea of res judicata, the Board called upon the landlord to prove his allegation in limine.

2 As a result the landlord gave evidence which established the following facts. The appellant had been the respondent's tenant since the year 1947. By application No. 772 of 1953 the landlord had sought to have the standard rent of the land determined. By its certificate issued on July 23, 1953 the Board described the land as having an area of 6750 sq. ft. and fixed the standard rent at “$1.00 a month per lot of 5000 sq. ft. from 1 ^st July, 1953”. This in effect meant that the standard rent of the land occupied by the tenant was $1.35 per month. By a subsequent application made on July 21, 1960 (No. 268 of 1960) the landlord again sought the Board's determination of the standard rent of the land. The tenant did not appear at the hearing although he had been served with the summons. The Board proceeded to decide the matter ex parte (as it was entitled to do) and assessed the standard rent at the sum of $8.00 per month from 1 ^st August 1960. This is the determination on which the landlord relied for the purpose of his alleged plea of ‘ res judicata’.

3 The tenant also gave sworn testimony, which was limited substantially to the issue then under consideration by the Board, viz: whether the standard rent of the land had been previously determined by the Board on the landlord's application in 1960. It is noteworthy that the tenant averred that he was not aware of that application. In that state of affairs the Board found that the landlord had proved his defence and dismissed the application, the subject matter of this appeal, on the ground that the matter was res judicata.

4 The Board's jurisdiction for the purpose of the determination of the standard of rent of premises controlled by the provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, Ch. 27 No. 18, is derived from s. 8(3) of the Ordinance, which is in the following terms:

“The landlord or the tenant of any premises to which this Ordinance applies may at any time apply to the Board to determine the standard rent thereof appropriate to the...