Lutchmee Narain Dhunnoo v Shyam Kumar Cheekooree (Mauritius)

An appeal from a specialist tribunal limited to a point of law cannot be used to reargue competing factual evidence. A factual finding is reviewable only where unsupported by evidence or where the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts it. A tribunal may take the absence of documentary evidence into account when assessing hearsay, particularly where that absence reinforces, rather than creates, its preference between witnesses. An appellate court may identify the amended application actually determined and assess market rent by reference to evidence supporting that claim. The Board left open whether the relevant date is the application date or the determination date.

The appellant, a long-standing commercial tenant, challenged the Fair Rent Tribunal’s determination of market rent. The Tribunal preferred the landlord’s valuer’s evidence and relied on a comparable premises in the same building, using a 2017 valuation supporting the amended application. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the appeal by way of case stated. Before the Privy Council, the appellant argued that the Tribunal had relied on an irrelevant absence of documents and on evidence from the wrong valuation date. He also sought permission to advance a new challenge to the case stated. The central issues were whether those complaints raised points of law under section 15(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1999 and whether the new ground should be admitted.

The appeal was dismissed. Lord Hamblen delivered the judgment of the Board.

1. The Board refused permission to advance the new ground concerning the composition and preparation of the case stated. The objections were apparent on the face of the case stated and could, and should, have been raised before the Supreme Court. The Board’s settled practice, illustrated by St Nicholas Grammar School Ltd v Arnulphy [2022] UKPC 23, is departed from only in exceptional circumstances. None existed here.
2. Under section 15(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1999, an appeal from the Tribunal lies only on a point of law. The summary of the law in Mauritius Breweries Ltd v The Commissioner of Income Tax [1996] SCJ 402, including the principle in Edwards v Bairstow [1956 AC 14], was accepted as correct. A factual finding may be challenged only where there is no evidence to support it or where the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts it, so that the finding is perverse. The Tribunal’s finding was supported by the evidence of the landlord’s valuer and the Kestrel Digital comparable.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to refer to the absence of documentary evidence supporting hearsay evidence that the comparable tenant paid a turnover-based contribution rather than rent. That absence was a relevant evidential factor. It reinforced the Tribunal’s preference for the landlord’s valuer but was not critical to it. The complaint therefore did not concern an erroneous exercise of discretion or raise a point of law.
4. The Supreme Court was entitled to treat the amended 2017 application as the application whose claim was being determined. Reliance on valuation evidence relating to 2017 consequently disclosed no legal error. The Board expressly left open whether the relevant date is the application date or the date of determination. Since the determination took effect from the date of decision, the Board observed that determining current rather than past market rent would be logical.

• Privy Council: Dismissed the appeal as of right from the Supreme Court of Mauritius: [2025] UKPC 36.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: On 26 July 2022, dismissed the appellant’s appeal by way of case stated from the Fair Rent Tribunal.
• Fair Rent Tribunal: On 2 August 2018, determined the market rent of the commercial premises at 38,414 rupees per month.