Devraj v Patel (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1955)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A statutory tribunal does not lose jurisdiction merely by a change in its composition during a hearing, provided it maintains the required quorum. Where evidence is part-heard and the tribunal composition changes, the proper course is to rehear the evidence, but failure to do so constitutes an irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect. Such irregularity amounts to a failure in natural justice warranting appellate intervention only if the new member was unable to observe witness demeanour at a critical time or relied on a defective record. Here, the deputy chairman heard the landlord's full cross-examination and re-examination, and the landlord substantially reiterated the material evidence, so no failure in natural justice occurred.
Outcome
Order of Central Rent Control Board requiring tenant to vacate premises upheld
Facts
The Central Rent Control Board sat to hear a landlord's application for possession of premises, composed of a chairman and two ordinary members. The landlord began giving evidence but the hearing was adjourned before his examination-in-chief was complete. A year later, the Board reconvened with the same two ordinary members but with the deputy chairman substituted for the chairman. The deputy chairman stated he would read the record and proceed; no objection was taken. The hearing continued with the landlord completing his evidence, including substantially reiterating the important parts of his earlier testimony. The Board, having found the landlord credible, ordered the tenant to vacate. The tenant appealed, arguing that the change in the Board's composition caused a loss of jurisdiction and a failure in natural justice.
Issues
- Whether a change in the composition of the Rent Control Board during a hearing causes an ex lege loss of jurisdiction.
- Whether a change in the composition of the Board during a hearing constitutes a failure in natural justice.
- Whether the irregularity of proceeding with a changed Board composition, where one member had not heard part of a witness's evidence, is sufficient to warrant appellate intervention.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.4
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948 Order 17 rule 10
- Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1937 rule 67(6)
Cases cited (7)
- Coleshill v Manchester Corporation (1928) 44 TLR 258
- Re Application of British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ltd (1929) 45 TLR 186
- Joseph v Joseph (1948) 117 LJR 513
- Fulker v Fulker (1936) 3 AER 636
- Whittle v Whittle (1939) 1 AER 374
- Knott v Knott (1935) P 158
- Meghji Karman v Koramshi Devraj (Civil Appeal No. 736 of 1951)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.