Controlled transactions are

In much of what we have seen, parties are left to their own devices and regulation is limited or restricted to such provisions as may be made under the relevant legislation. In a lot of those instances that we have seen, there is no direct intervention from outside in the sense that an administrative or quasi judicial organ comes in to practically supervise the sort of relationship that they have. The controlled transactions therefore assume the form of administrative or quasi judicial interventions in appropriate situations because of the perceived weaknesses that one of the parties involved suffers from or because of the imperatives that are placed in protecting certain special interests or values.

The case for control would have been appropriately made if firstly it is recognised that property owners ought not be allowed to enjoy roving and unfettered powers over their property in certain situations for such a state of affairs may militate against a general public interest. Secondly the case for control can be made where in situations involving proprietary transactions there are fundamental grounds that imply interventions to safeguard special interests. There is the consideration of the social as well as the economic values which merge to make a very strong case for control. There are basically 3 examples which can be cited to elaborate the phenomenal control

In the case of landlord tenant relationship residential
Landlord tenant relationship business;
Agricultural Land;

What forms do the controls effected in these areas take?

With regard to dwelling houses the Rent Restriction Act Cap 296 sets out tenancy standards below which voluntary agreements are not to fall and the aim of the Act is to protect tenants of premises which are let out for not more than what is described as standard rent from arbitrary increases of rent or dispossession by greedy landlords or from any alterations that would adversely affect their well being. This is a social as well as economic value giving ground for effecting control. The Act goes on to designate the categories of people that qualify, any dwelling house let standard rent is defined as of July 1989 at 2500 is a protected tenant. In the event that it is not rent out as that date it falls to the Rent Tribunal to determine what rent is payable. Sub tenants as well as tenants are equally protected.

In Desai V. Shah there are exceptions if the tenants are paying 2500 per month, they don’t automatically become protected tenant and the Act explains the exceptions such as accepted dwelling houses include property lent out by govt, local authorities or rent out to service tenants these tenants are outside the ambit of protection. S. 11 provides that rent can only be increased where the landlord has to pay increased rates or where he has improved the premises and where this has to be the case, it is not open for the landlord to do this unilaterally but must seek authority. It is only through the rent restriction tribunal that the terms can be altered by the Landlord.

The tenant enjoys protection since the landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent.

There are grounds that may be relied upon by the landlord when they want to throw tenants out which grounds must be sort for within the Act. Anything outside the Act is invalid, the Act restricts the sort of leverage that the landlord may have over the tenants and the idea is to restrict those powers that the landlord has over his property for the benefit of the tenants. The tribunal is incapable of enforcing its own orders and when it pronounces them they have to be enforced through the ordinary courts.

With regard to Business premises tenancies, the relevant statute is the Landlord and Tenants (Business Premises) Cap 301 which sets out standards below which voluntary agreements cannot avail. Protection here depends on the duration of the tenancy and on the purpose for which the tenancy is created. S. 21 defines controlled tenancy as the tenancy of a shop hotel etc which has not been reduced into writing and is not for a period extending for 5 years …
An essential feature, there is a requirement that termination of terms and conditions can only be carried out with the express provisions of the Act which are elaborate i.e. any party wishing to terminate must give notice and such notice must be channelled through the tribunal and the grounds to be cited must be from the Act and not extraneous and the elaborate procedure described applies. Any party wishing to challenge the others intended initiative must go through the tribunal and if there is a contest the matter must follow the laid down procedure. Tribunal enjoys wide ranging powers and like the rent restriction tribunal it suffers from inability to enforce its own orders which has to be through ordinary courts.


Like Us on Facebook

Contact Form


Email *

Message *