Perumal v. Gnanapandithan.
1946Present.- Wijeyewardene S.P.J. and Cannon J.PERUMAL, Appellant, and GNANAPANPiTH AN, Respondent.
340—D. C. BadvUa, 7,784, with Application 388.
Landlord and tenant—Action for ejectment and damages—Consent decree-enabling occupation b$ tenant for further period—Absence of clauseproviding for ejectment at the end of the extended period—Subsequentaction by landlord for ejectment—Requirement of notice tojquit—RentRestriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, s. 8.
In an action filed by a landlord against bis tenant for ejectment anddamages a decree was entered by consent on June 1, 1943. One of theterms of the settlement was that the defendant should pay the plaintiffrent at Rs. 50 per month for the premises occupied by him from June 1,1943, to September 30, 1943, and Rs. 100 a month for October andNovember, 1943, if he desired to continue the tenancy for the said twomonths. There was, however, no clause in the decree providing for writof ejectment to issue if the defendant failed to quit by November 30,1943.
J (1945) 46 N. L. R. 370.
WIJEYEWAKDENE S.P.J.—Perumal v. Gnanctpandithan.
The landlord filed a separate action in May, 1944, alleging that thetenant was in wrongful possession of the premises after November 30,1943, and claiming ejectment and damages.
Held, that under the decree entered of consent the defendant became atenant under the plaintiff for the period ending November 30, 1943,with the option of terminating his tenancy earlier on September 30, 1943,and that in the case of such a tenancy no notice need be given by thelandlord to terminate the tenancy.
Quaere, whether the tenant in such a ease is entitled to claim thebenefit of section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
PPEAL., with application for revision, from a judgment of theDistrict Judge of Badulla.
JET. V. Perera, K.C. (with him N. Kumarasingham), for the defendant,appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him D. W. Fernando and DodwellChinawardene), for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 30, 1946. Wijeyewakdeni: S.P.J.—
The defendant became a tenant of the plaintiff some years ago and inJune, 1942, the plaintiff gave the defendant notice to quit the premisesat the end of the following month. As the defendant failed to complywith the notice, the plaintiff filed action No. 7,485 against him in October,1942, in the District Court of Badulla for ejectment and damages. Adecree was entered by consent in that action on June 1, 1943. Thatdecree was in the following terms :—
(а)That the defendant do pay the plaintiff Rs. 625 as rent and damages
up to May 31, 1943.
(б)That he pay the plaintiff rent at Rs. 50 per month for the premises
occupied by him from June 1, 1943, to September 30, 1943, andRs. 100 a month for October and November, 1943, if he desiresto continue the tenancy for the said two months.
That defendant do pay all assessment taxes for the said period of
six months during his tenancy.
That the plaintiff be entitled to take the produce of the coconut
trees on the premises and to remove from the defendant’s yardtwo door frames now lying there and belonging to him.
That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs. 50 as costs of this
(/) That the defendant do allow the plaintiff to commence any buildingoperations, during the period June 1,1943, to November 30,1943,on the western end of the premises between, the garage and thewestern boundary and allow thfe plaintiff’s workmen to haveaccess to the building site during the day.
In January, 1944, the plaintiff moved to have the decree amended byinserting an additional clause :—“ In any event writ of ejectment to issueon December 1, 1943, if defendant fails to quit by November 30, 1943
Ghandrawimala, Therunnanae v. SiyacLorie.
He pleaded in support of that application that it was through inadvertencethat the proposed clause was not inserted in the decree as it was originallyentered. The defendant opposed that application and the District Judgerefused to amend the decree. No appeal was taken against that order.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present action in May, 1944, allegingthat the defendant was in wrongful possession of the premises after Nov-ember 30, 1943, and claiming ejectment and damages. The defendantfiled answer claiming inter alia the benefit of section 8 of the Rent Restric-tion Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942. The District Judge held that the plaintiffwas entitled to a writ of ejectment and to damages until he got possessionof the premises.
Construingthe decree inD. C. Badulla, 7,485,in a manner mostfavourableto the plaintiff I hold that under the decree the defendant became atenant under the plaintiff for the period ending November 30, 1943, withthe option of terminating his tenancy earlier on September 30, 1943.In the case of such a tenancy, no notice to quit need be given by thelandlord to terminate the tenancy. The question that has to be consideredthen is whether the defendant is entitled to claim the benefit of section 8of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. There has been a certain conflictof views on the question whether a tenant like a lessee under a notariallease whose tenancy comes to an end without a notice to quit could beconsidered as a tenant to whom section 8 of the Rent RestrictionOrdinance applies. I do not propose to express any opinion on thatpoint as that will shortly be decided by a Bench of three Judges.Assuming however for the purposes of this case that section 8 of the RentRestriction Ordinance is applicable to the tenancy of the defendant, Iam of opinion that on the evidence placed before him the District Judgehas reached a correct decision in holding in favour of the plaintiff.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
The application for revision is also dismissed.
Cannon J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed,Application dismissed.
PERUMAL , Appellant, and GNANAPANDITHAN , Respondent