SANSON! .T.—r>r Silva i*. Aheyamfne
1055Present : Sansoni J..T. If. DM SILVA, Appellant, and H. M. D. ABEYARATNB, RespondentS. C. 153—C. R. Panwila, 1,075
Landlord and tenant—Safe of rented -premises—Right of vendor to sue tenant forejectment.
When n landlord sells tho rented premises it is open to him to sue the tenantthereafter in ejectment, in order to give vacant possession to the vendee.Wije&inijhe v. Charles (1915) 18 N. I*. R. 168, followed.
^V.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Panwila.
M. R. O. Dissanayake,, for the plaintiff appellant.
M. Rafeek, for the defendant respondent.
March 4, 1955. Sansoni J.—
The plaintiff sued the defendant in ejectment relying on the documentPI of 1950 by which the defendant promised the plaintiff to quit andvacate certain premises within 30 days and hand over peaceful possessionof the same. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had any right tosue him and pleaded that the plaintiff’s remedy was a partition action.He also pleaded that he had taken a lease of these premises in 1954 fromcertain parties who were alleged to be co-owners of the land. Issues wereframed when tho caso came lip for. trial, each proctor suggesting a tie-finite sot of issues, the total number being nine. The record docs not showthat the parties agreed to dispense with oral evidence. The plaintiff’sproctor marked PI and the defendant’s proctor marked Dl, a transferexecuted by the plaintiff, and D 2, the proceedings of a case filed by theplaintiff’s vehdee against the defendant. The Commissioner then madean order holding that, as the plaintiff has transferred tho premises whichare the subject matter of this action, he cannot sue the defendant who wasalleged to be his former tenant. It is wrong to suppose that where an
PULLE J.—Assistant Government Agent, Matara t>. Sidetik – vSTS •
owner of a land sells it after having put a tenant in occupation he ^pre-cluded from bringing an action, thereafter to eject his tenant. If atjctfio-rity is needed it could be found in Wijesinghe v. Charles *. The plairiBff,t herefore, as I see it, was not precluded from bringing this action merfflkbecause ho had parted with his interests in the land. The learned CoinJ?inissioner relied on the case reported in 53 N. L. R. 311 where Swan J.decided that when a landlord sells leased premises it is open to the tenant toelect whether or not he should continue as the tenant of the now landlord.That is an entirely different proposition. Undoubtedly it is open to atenant to refuse to continue as tenant under a now landlord after theformer landlord has sold the land, but if he refuses to continue as tenanthis first duty is to quit the premises. If he chooses to stay in occupationho remains there as tenant and if the landlord’s vendee wants vacantpossession it is open to the landlord to sue the tenant in ojcctment. I amassuming, of course, that the defendant was the plaintiff’s tenant, although,if he was not the plaintiff’s tenant, I cannot see how his proctor could haveasked the learned Commissioner to decide this case. The trial can onlytake place satisfactorily if the parties first lead such ovidenco as theychoose to lead on the issues that have been suggested and the Commissionerthen makes his findings on those issues. I set aside the order made bythe loarnod Commissioner and sent the case back for a fresh trial on theissues framed. Costs of this appeal will abide the result of the fresh trial.
Order set aside.
J. H. DE SILVA , Appellant, and H. M. D. ABEYARATNE, Respondent