Suelou (Pty) Ltd v Central East Rent Board, Johannesburg, and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1983 (3) SA 904 (T)

Suelou (Pty) Ltd v Central East Rent Board, Johannesburg, and Others
1983 (3) SA 904 (T)

1983 (3) SA p904

Citation	1983 (3) SA 904 (T)
Court	Transvaal Provincial Division
Judge	FS Steyn J
Heard	May 10, 1983
Judgment	May 30, 1983

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Landlord and tenant — Rent Control Act 80 of 1976 — Controlled premises — Rental for — Determination of by rent board — "Value" — Ascertainment of in terms of ss (e) of definition of "value" in s 1 — Procedure to be followed outlined — Rent Control Board failing to advise owner as to controlled and uncontrolled premises of similar class which were taken into consideration in determining value D — Audi alteram partem rule not applied — Failure of justice resulting — Decision of Rent Control Board set aside.

Headnote : Kopnota

In applications where value is to be determined as a prerequisite to a decision by a rent board, the practical procedure to be followed should be that the rent board should E advise the parties that it proposes to take into consideration certain named premises in terms of ss (e) of the definition of "value" in s 1 of the Rent Control Act 80 of 1976, or that one of the other affected parties has requested it to take into consideration certain named premises. Opportunity for debate should be allowed on all the relevant aspects of the facts and the law appertaining to similarity in class, nature and situation as well as the extent of "vicinity" (as contemplated in ss (e) of the definition of "value").

F In casu, a failure by a rent board to inform the owner of premises in respect of which it had made a determination of rental that controlled and uncontrolled premises of a similar class or nature had been taken into consideration in arriving at its determination was held to have resulted in a failure of natural justice because the audi alteram partem rule had not been applied. G

Case Information

Application to set aside the decision of the first respondent. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

H Z Slomowitz SC (with him G Farber) for the applicant.

D H van Zyl for the first respondent.

Cur adv vult. H

Postea (May 30).

Judgment

F S Steyn J:

In this application the applicant seeks the setting aside of the decision of the first respondent -

"(a)

upholding the complaint of the third respondent that the rental of R300 being paid by her in respect of her tenancy of duplex No 8 in Reneilan was unreasonable;

1983 (3) SA p905

F S Steyn J

(b)

determining the sum of R230,93 as reasonable rental for the said duplex and all the other duplexes in Reneilan;

(c)

ordering the applicant to reduce to the sum of R230,93 the rental charged by the applicant in respect of the duplex occupied by the third respondent and the other duplexes situate in Reneilan, such reduction in respect of the third respondent to take effect from 29 July, 1981, and in A respect of the remaining respondents of Reneilan, with effect from 1 March 1982;

(d)

ordering the applicant to refund to the third respondent the sum of R512,52, being the difference between the rental paid by the third respondent in respect of her tenancy of the duplex occupied by her, and the reasonable rental as determined by it for such duplex over the period, 29 July B 1981 to 25 February 1982;"

It further seeks the setting aside of second respondent's confirmation of the decision of the first respondent. Two issues of substance arise from applicant's claim. Firstly, whether the determination of rental is based on a correct valuation of the property concerned in accordance with the judgment of COLMAN J in Lukral Investments (Pty) Ltd v Rent Control Board Pretoria and Others 1969 (1) SA 496 (T); C secondly, whether first respondent failed in carrying out the obligations imposed on a quasi-judicial tribunal by the requirements of natural justice (as repeatedly laid down by our Courts) when it omitted to advise applicant of all relevant facts considered by first respondent when it considered the D rental and rental value of controlled premises and uncontrolled premises of a similar class, nature or situation in the vicinity in terms of s 1 para (e) under "Value" of the Rent Control Act 80 of 1976.

These complaints appear in paras 10 (f), 10 (h) and 10 (i) of s 9 of the affidavit of R L Hardy in which he alleges various E faults in the reasons of the first and second respondents.

In applicant's application for review of the decision of the first respondent by second respondent, the application contained the following averments against first respondent:

"3.

The Central Rent Board -

(f)

failed to exercise that degree of reasonableness as an F element in its determination of value as prescribed in s 1 (xiv) of the Act;

(n)

committed a gross irregularity in that it failed to give the applicant the opportunity of meeting the assumptions upon which it had based its conclusions;"

In first respondent's reply F J Dietzch quotes the definition of value as contained in s 1 of Act 80 of 1976 and proceeds to state:

"(b)

G Ek wens met eerbied aan te voer dat die...