BASNAYAKE J.—Henry v. Hamidoon Hadjiar
1951Present : Basnayake J.HENRY, Appellant, and HAMIDOON HADJIAR, RespondentS. C. 204—C. R. Colombo, 27,531
Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948—Section 13 (1) (c)—Right of a co-landlord to suetenant in ejectment.
Section 13 (1) (c) of the Bent Restriction Act does not enable cne only ofseveral co-landlords to sue a tenant in ejectment on the ground that he. reqoireBthe premises for his occupation as a residence.
PPEAIj from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
W. Jayevmrdene, for the defendant appellant.
H. C. de Silva, for the plaintiff respondent-..
Cur. adv. trait-
May 8, 1951. Basnayake J.—
This is an appeal by the tenant of premises 'No. 88, Silversmith Street,against whom a decree for ejectment has been entered. The respondentto this appeal is a person who claims to be the lanHard of the premises.The appellant, has been the tenant of these premises lor the last ten years,9 – N. L. R. Vol. – Liii
48BASNAl'AKE J.—Henry v. Hamidnon Hadjiar
during which period it has changed hands several times. One Letchu-manan Chettiar was the original owner, from whom the respondent’smother and aunt purchased the premises in 1947. The respondentacted on their behalf and collected the rents of not only these premisesbut of a row of fourteen tenements which belonged to them. Therespondent’s mother died in 1949 whereupon he and his sister succeededto her property. The respondent is the owner of two-thirds of a halfshare of the premises. The other third of that half share is owned byhis sister. His aunt ownstheremaininghalf share. Therespondent,
his sister, who is married,andhis aunt,are in occupationof premises
No. 180/9, Grandpass Road. The respondent who at the date of thisaction was a bachelor, 24 years of age, is carrying on business as ajeweller in Fort in partnership with one Jawar. The respondent’s caseis that a marriage has been arranged for him and that he requires thepremises for occupation by him as a residence on his marriage.
The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether oneonly of three co-owners of any premises is entitled to bring an action inejectment on the ground that he requires the premises for occupationas a- residence. The questionhas not been raised in thatform in the
issues framed at the trial,butissue No.6 is wide enough.It reads:
“ Can the plaintiff in any event maintain this action for ejectment ? ”.Even when no specific issue is raised I think the Court is justified inseeing whether the conditions of the Rent Restriction Act are satisfiedbefore decree in ejectment is granted.
Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, on whichthe respondent relies, permits a landlord to sue a tenant in ejectmentwhen the premises are required for his occupation as a residence or forthe occupation of any member of the family of the landlord. The sectiondoes not enable one of several co-landlords to sue a tenant in ejectmenton the ground that he requires the premises for his occupation as aresidence. The respondent is therefore not entitled to maintain thisaction as section 13 (1) prohibits the institution of any action in eject-ment which does not fall within the proviso to •that section except ina case where the authorisation of the Rent Control Board has been
The appeal is allowed with costs.
HENRY, Appellant, and HAMIDOON HADJIAR, Respondent