STRIMANE, J.—Quyn v- Ibrahim
Present: Sirimane, J.
S. J. QUYN, Appellant, and M. M. IBRAHIM, RespondentS. C. 144/67—C. R. Colombo, 91153/R. E.
Rent Restriction Act—Landlord carrying on business in partnership in his premises—Whether his partners can remain in occupation oj the premises after terminationof partnership.
Whero a landlord of rent-controlled premises who carries on a business inpartnership in the premises permits a part-nor to occupy or use tho premisesduring tho continuance of tho partnership, the Jattor is not entitled to romainon tho promises after tho termination of tho partnership, after ho ha3 boongiven duo notice to quit.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
J. Fernando, with C'amini Dissanayake, for^the plaintiff-appellant..
T. Nadarajah, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
September 25, 1968. Siruiaxe, J.—
The plaintiff is the tenant of premises No. 4S0, Skinners Road South,Colombo, and carried on business there alone. In 1959, he entered intoa deed of partnership (Pi) with the defendant and certain others, andagreed, inter alia, not to prevent the defendant and the others from
SIRIMAXE, J.—Qnyn v. IbrahimI3t
occupying or using the premises during the continuance of the partner-ship. The defendant, therefore, entered into occupation of the premisesas the licensee of the plaintiff.
After tlie Japse of two j'ears, tlie partnership was renewed by (P2)which is in similar terms.
The plaintiff thereafter, in February, 19G5, by (P3) terminated thepartnership and requested the defendant to quit the premises.
The defendant in his original answer pleaded that he was a tenant-under the plaintiff and sought the protection of the Rent RestrictionAct.
In his amended answer he abandoned that position, and averred thatthe partnership u-as terminated on 24th of May, 1963, by an Agreement,but that according to that Agreement (which was produced marked Dl)the plaintiff was estopped from instituting this action. So that bothparties Mere agreed that the partnership has been terminated, but they-were only at variance in regard to the date-of termination. The learnedCommissioner was, therefore, wrong in holding that the partnership wasstill in existence.
The defendant’s claim to remain in occupation was based solely on Dlof 1963. By this document the plaintiff agreed not to claim any sumwhatsoever from the business and also agreed to the defendant carryingon the business by himself.. The plaintiff stated in evidence that hesigned Dl, without any consideration, only to enable the defendant toraise a loan on the footing that he was the sole owner of the business,The defendant, on the other hand, stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 6,000to the plaintiff on Dl.
The learned Commissioner found the evidence of both the plaintiffand the defendant relating to Dl very unsatisfactory, and stated that hecould not act on the evidence of either.
One has, therefore, to look at the document Dl itself. I can seenothing in this document by which the plaintiff surrendered his right topossession of the premises to the defendant.
The learned Commissioner thought that the decision in Mohamed v.Sahul Hameed 1 applied to this case and dismissed the plaintiff's actionon that ground. The decision there was that one partner as landlordcould not sue the other partners as tenants for rent and ejectment inrespect of premises where the business of the partnership is carried on.
In this case the partnership had been terminated.
In my view, the defendant was in occupation of the premises only asthe licensee of the plaintiff so long as the partnership subsisted. On itstermination (and that was the case for both parties) he was no longerentitled to remain there after the plaintiff had given him due notice toquit.
1 (1919) 51 N. L. B. 86 ; 40 C. L. W. 61.
Pndmanaba v. Jayasekera
The order dismissing the plaintiff’s action is set aside, and I directthat judgment be entered in favour of plaintiff for ejectment of thedefendant.
The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 150 per month as damages from 28.6.6G.There is no evidence to support this claim. The evidence discloses thatthe monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 35. The plaintiff will beentitled to damages at that rate from 28.6.66. The plaintiff is alsoentitled to the costs of this action.
S. J. QUYN, Appellant, and M. M. IBRAHIM, Respondent