John Appuhamy v. David.
1945Present: Soertsz S.P.J.JOHN APPUHAMY, Appellant, and DAVID, Respondent.
174—C. R. Colombo, No. 94,677.
Landlord and tenant—Action- for ejectment—Premises reasonably requiredfor landlord's use—Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1943, s. 8.
Where premises are reasonably required for the use of the landlordthe tenant iB not entitled to stay on so long .as a makeshift arrangementof some sort can be resorted to by the landlord.
^ PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo.
Plaintiff sued defendant, his tenant, for ejectment from a room inpremises No. 215, Hulftsdorp street, on the ground that the said roomwas reasonably required for his principal business, namely, the supplyingof meals to various persons employed in Hulftsdorp. He had vacatedhis former premises which were to be demolished for a fire-gap and wastemporarily using a portion of premises No. 215 for preparing the mealsand there was no other place suited for the purpose of dishing out the mealsexcept the room occupied by the defendant. It was also in evidence—(a)that the premises No. 215 were very extensive and partly occupied byplaintiff and his own people, (6) that plaintiff’s brother and brother-in-lawused nearby premises belonging to plaintiff for a similar business, (c) thatplaintiff had already converted a garage in the premises into a room,
that accommodation was available to the defendant in the vicinity.
The defence evidence was (a) that defendant had an extensive practicein Hulftsdorp as a licensed Surveyor for many years and was in factsharing the premises with an Auctioneer and Broker, (fe) that the alter-native accommodation available to defendant was unsuited for hispurpose, (c) that a verandah or garage could provide improvisedaccommodation to plaintiff.
The Commissioner of Requests dismissed the plaintiff’s action.
80BRTSZJohn Appuhamy *. David.
A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him M. M. Kumarakitlasinghamy, forplaintiff, appellant.
H. W. Jayowardene, for defendant, respondent.
May 17, 1945. Soertsz, S.P.J.—
I have examined the evidence in this case very carefully and I amsatisfied that the plaintiff’s need is greater than that of the defendant.This seems to be a case in which it can be said that the landlord reasonablyrequires the premises for himself. The view taken by the Commissionerappears to be that so long as some sort of makeshift arrangement can beresorted to by the landlord, the tenant is entitled to stay oil. I am notdisposed to endorse that view. The dice are already heavily loadedagainst landlords and I do not think we should resort-to extreme measuresto take away from him so drastically what in normal times would havebeen his undoubted right. I
I set aside the order of the Commissioner with costs in both courtsand direct that an order for ejectment be entered and that it be carried outunless the defendant vacates the premises in time to enable the plaintiffto go into occupation by August 1, 1945.
Order set aside.
JOHN APPUHAMY, Appellant, and DAVID , Respondent