( 99 )
PERERA v. RODRIGO.D. C., Kandy, 76,122.
Lease—Specific performance of—Holding over.
A lessee is not entitled by virtue alone of the title to possessionpassed to him by the lease to maintain an action of ejectment against astranger to the lease in respect of lands, of which he, the lessee, wasnever put into possession by his lessor.
Semble, that where a person is put into possession of land by theowner in pursuance of an invalid parol lease for a term of years, hecannot be ejected by that owner until his holding, whatever it is, hasexpired, or has been put an end to by a proper notice.
HE plaintiff, by virtue of a deed of lease dated 30th January,1878, executed by persons not made parties to the suit, sought
in his libel t,o be put and placed in possession of certain lands,alleging that defendant was in forcible possession of the same.The defendant resisted the action on the ground that he had aprior verbal lease from the plaintiff's lessors yet to run for fiveyears, and that, having effected material improvements on thedemised premises, he was entitled to retain possession of them,if not for the full period of the lease, at all events until he wasrepaid a proper compensation for the improvements in question.The District Judge gave judgment for plaintiff as prayed.
On appeal this decree was reversed.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.
Dharmaratne, for respondent.
17th January, 1878. Phbar, C.J.—
The plaintiff in this case has shown no cause of action againstthe defendant. He has entered into a contract of lease with theowner of the lands which are the subject of suit, and has not yetobtained from that owner performance of the contract. To obtainspecific performance he must bring his snit against the person
( 100 )
with whom he made the contract, not against a stranger to thatcontract, as the defendant is. And so far as the evidence which hasbeen given in the case goes, it would appear that even as againstthe owner of the land the defendant is in rightfnl possession. Heappears to be holding over after the expiration of a definite term,and as he has been allowed to hold over, he can only be called uponto give up possession by the owner after his present indefinite termhad been duly pat an end to by such notice as under the circum-stances may be requisite. In other words, as against the owner ofthe land who let him into possession, he does not become a tres-passer until the period of his holding, whatever it be, has elapsed.And the plaintiff in this suit does not even represent the owners.At best he has got such right of action against the owner as thecontract of lease gives him.
The decree which is appealed against is set aside, and theplaintiff’s suit dismissed with oosts.
PERERA v. RODRIGO