CASEXEHATNE J.—ThamotherompiUai v. Oovindasamy.
1946Present; Canekeratne J.
'I'H AMOTH,ERAMT>TT-.T,AI, Appellant, and GOVLNlJASAMY,Respondent.
307—C. P. Trinccrmalee, 7,395.
Landlord and tenant—Tenant's conduct which is a nuisance to adjoiningoccupiers—Ground for ejectment—Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of1942, s. 8 (d).
A tenant can, under proviso (d) of section 8 of the Rent RestrictionOrdinance, be ejected from the premises let to him if he causes asubstantial interference with the enjoyment of the adjoining room by thelandlord.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Trinco-malee.
S. J. V. Cftelvanayagam for the plaintiff, appellant.
No appearance for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 4, 1946. Cajtekeratne J.—
This is an appeal from the order of the Commissioner dismissing withcosts the action of the plaintiff, the landlord of certain premises, thenorthern room in the tiled house on the land situate in No. 3 Division.The claim of the plaintiff was for an order of possession of the premiseswhich were and are in the occupation of the defendant and for conse-quential relief. The basis of the claim was that the defendant had causeddamage to the house and premises of the plaintiff and annoyance to him.The premises were and are within the protection of the Rent RestrictionOrdinance. The house consists of two rooms, the other room beingoccupied by the plaintiff and his wife, a sickly woman who has sometrouble in her eye.
1*J. N. A 61158 (4/46)
CANEKERATNE J.—Thaw other ainpiUai v. Govindaiainy.
Plaintiff testified that as the defendant was causing trouble, he askedhim on May 26, 1045, to vacate the room : that night the defendantcaused great damage to the premises. Next day, fearing that theplaintiff might prosecute him, the defendant sent for one Jubar andone Hussein, requested them to dissuade the plaintiff from taking anysteps against him and promised to vacate the room by the end of June.-These two persons saw plaintiff and communicated the defendant’spromise to him.
The defendant is a radio mechanic and brings home radio sets for repair.Since the end of May the defendant was creating trouble and was usinga radio set till late in the night, so plaintiff gave him notice on July 28to leave the premises by the end of August: as defendant failed tocomply with the notice this action was instituted on October 11.
The learned Commissioner appears to take the view that the defendanthas caused annoyance to the plaintiff but that is not conduct which is anuisance to adjoining occupiers—no other occupier had made a complaintagainst the defendant. Complaint, in his view, should be made bymore than one person ; as defendant is a repairer of radio sets “ he mustdo the repairing only when he is off-duty, so putting the radio on lateat nights is not a nuisance.”
Proceedings for ejectment can be taken against a statutory tenantby the landlord if he can satisfy the Court that the tenant had been guiltyof conduct which is a nuisance to adjoining occupiers. (Sec. 8, proviso Cof Ordinance No. 60 of 1942.)
The conduct of a person may be a nuisance to one person or to a numberof persons : it depends on the nature of the act done by the wrongdoer :if a tenant grossly misuses the premises let to him it is clear that thelandlord can complain that the conduct of the tenant is a nuisance withinthe meaning of the section. (See Ferguson v. Butler x.)
In the case of a nuisance by smell or noise, the fact that only oneperson complains is a circumstance to be taken into consideration by thetribunal, it may not infrequently turn the scales against the landlord :it is, however, not decisive of his rights. (See section 2 (x) of Chapter 2of the Legislative Enactments.)
The defendant has turned the premises let to him to a workshopwhere he attends to repairs of radio sets at night. Any substantialinterference with the comfort or convenience of persons occupying orusing the premises is a sufficient interference with the beneficial use ofpremises.
Persons living in a locality may have to bear with patience the noiseordinarily found there but the addition of a fresh noise caused by a personworking every night may be so substantial as to create a nuisance. Theplaintiff complains of the noise made practically every night by thedefendant in the course of effecting repairs to radio sets ; he complainsof the noise made by tuning-in the wireless-sets till late in the night.The existence of the noise in this case is clear ; such noise does cause a
1 Blundell’s Cases, p. 71.
DE SILVA J.—Eliyathamby v. Kandiah.
substantial interference with the enjoyment of the adjoining room bythe plaintiff during the night: it would be injurious to the physicalcomfort of the plaintiff and his wife. (See Forrest v. Leefe x).
The appeal is allowed with costs in both Courts.
THA MOTHERAMPILLAI, Appellant, and GOVINDASAMY, Respondent