SESnSTETAMBY, J.—Nanayakkara v. IUangakoon
1959Present: Sinnetamby, J.NANAYAKKARA, Appellant, and ELLANGAKOON, Respondent
S. G. 144- —C. R. Colombo, 65,149
Rent Restriction Act—“ Premises
Bare land on which no building stands cannot be regarded as “ premises **within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Act, although the land is in acommercial area and is used for a business purpose.
PPEAE from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
W. Jayewardene, Q.G., with S. Bajaratnam and N. B. M. DaluwaMe,for Defendant-Appellant.
G. T. SamerauricJcreme, with D. B. P. GoonetilleJce, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 19, 1959. Sinitetamby, J.—
The question that arises for decision in this case is whether bare landon which no building stands comes within the scope of the Rent RestrictionAct. In Pakiadasan v. Marshall Appu 1 this Court held that a plot ofland consisting of grass field and a vegetable enclosure cannot be regarded■as “ premises ” within the meaning of the Act. In the present case thebare land is in a commercial area of the city with no building or shed
1 (1951) 52 N. L. R. 335.
BASNAYAKE, C-J.—Badurdeen v. Alagirisamy
standing on it. Scrap iron is, however, stored on it in the open exposed tomm Mirl rain. It ia contended that as the land is used solely for a businesspurpose and not for an agricultural purpose the decision in PakiadasanMarshall Appu (supra) would not apply. _It was_aLso contended that theAct was intended to protect not only tenants in occupation of houses butalso persons carrying on business irrespective of whether the business-was conducted in a building or not. Pakiadasan v. Marshall Appa(supra) was decided on the basis that to constitute “ premises'*’ withinthe meaning of the Act there must exist a building on the land which formsthe subject matter of the suit. That decision was approved tacitly ifnot expressly in Nalla&cumby v. Leitan 1 and Paul v. Geverappa Reddiar KIn my view it makes no difference that the land is used for a businesspurpose and not for an agricultural purpose. So long as no building-stands on it the land cannot be regarded as premises to which theprovisions of the Act apply.
The judgment of the learned Commissioner of Requests is affirmed,and the appeal dismissed with costs here and in the Court below.
NANAYAKKARA, Appellant, and ILLANGAKOON, Respondent