Thanki and Ors. v. New Palace Hotel (1964) Ltd., Civ. App. 16 of 1971, E. A. C. A. 22/7/71. Spry, V. P.

Thanki and Ors. v. New Palace Hotel (1964) Ltd., Civ. App. 16 of 1971, E. A. C. A. 22/7/71. Spry, V. P.

            The respondent company made an application to the Rent Tribunal to determine the standard rent of a building operated as a hotel under the name “New Palace Hotel.” The Tribunal proceeded to assess the standard rent and the appellants appealed against the decision. At the hearing of the appeal, the leaned judge raised on his own motion the question whether  the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application, and decided that the matter was outside the ambit of the Act as the transaction constituted “a lease of a business or running concern as a whole” and not the premises. The Court of Appeal found that the contract was expressed to be for a

             Fixed term; there were inter alia, an option of renewal, a definition of the premises, an agreement to pay rent, a covenant for quiet enjoyment and other provisions usual in leases.

                        Held: (1) “Prima facie the contract between the parties is an agreement for a lease. We can find nothing in the evidence to show that tit was not what it appears to be. We accept that the contract between the parties may have included elements going beyond the landlord and tenant relationship, but that cannot take the tenancy outside the provisions of the Act. Such matters may be for consideration by the Tribunal under section 4(2) of the Act or they may only be enforceable, if at all, by the courts; those are not matters that concern us on this appeal.” (2) “We think, with great respect, that the leaned judge erred in thinking that if the relationship between the parties went beyond that of landlord and tenant, the Act did not apply. If the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, we think the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and we have no doubt that that relationship existed, whether it was part of a wider one, as alleged, or whether the transaction was basically a lease with certain additional elements.” (3) Appeal is allowed ……. And the proceedings are remitted to the High Court to hear and determine the appeal from the Tribunal.