062-NLR-NLR-V-49-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-DAVID-Respondent.pdf
210
Fernando v. David.
1948Present :Basnayake J.
FERNANDO, Appellant, and DAVID, Respondent.
S. C. 174—C. R. Kandy, 1,685.
.Rent Restriction Ordinance, section 8 (c)—Premises reasonably required by landlord—Alternative accommodation for tenant—Duty of Court.
Once a Court is satisfied that premises are reasonably required by the landlordfor any of the purposes mentioned in section 8 (c) of the Rent RestrictionOrdinance, the Court is not entitled to take into account the tenant’s difficultiesof finding accommodation.
Raheem v. Jayawardene (1944) 45 N. It. R. 313 doubted.
BASNAYAKE J.—Fernando v. David.
211
_^PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Kandy.
Vernon Wijetunge, for defendant, appellant.
S. R. Wijayatilake, for plaintiff, respondent.
JfCur. adv. vult.
March 18, 1948. Basnayake J.—
This action was instituted by the respondent to this appeal againstthe appellant to have him ejected from premises No. 89, TrincomaleeStreet, at Kandy. The respondent avers that he wants the house forhis occupation. The appellant has been the tenant of the premises-since 1942. He lives at Moratuwa and carries on the business of anundertaker at these premises. He resists the action on the ground thathe has no suitable accommodation to which he can move and that if heleaves these premises his business will be adversely affected.
The respondent lives at a place called Kulugammana about eightmiles from Kandy. He has to travel daily to Kandy for the purposeof his business and his children who attend schools in Kandy have to dolikewise. This is the only house he owns in Kandy and wants it as hewishes to live there in order that he may be near the schools which hischildren attend and the centre of his business activities.
On the evidence before him the learned Commissioner of Requests hasformed the opinion that the premises are reasonably required by therespondent for his occupation as a residence. I am not prepared to saythat the evidence does not justify the opinion formed by the learnedCommissioner. In dealing with the question of reasonableness of thelandlord’s demand for possession the Court is entitled to consider thearguments by the landlord with regard to the convenience he wouldenjoy by being nearer his work and the schools which his children attendand the financial benefit he would derive.
Learned Counsel for the appellant placed great reliance on the cases ofRaheem v. Jayawardene1 and Ramen v. Per era 2 In regard to the formercase I wish to say with the greatest respect that I find myself unable toagree with the opinion of My Lord the Chief Justice that section 8 (c)of our Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, should be read as ifthe words “ and, in any such case as aforesaid the Court considers itreasonable to make such an order or give such judgment ” were includedtherein.
I am not aware of any rule of interpretation by which express provisionsof other legislation can be read into an enactment of our legislature.The English law on the subject of rent restriction is complex and rangesover several enactments and decisions thereon have to be utilised ininterpreting our Ordinance with extreme caution. As observed by LordMacMillan 3 “ the best and safest guide to the intention of all legislation
1 (3944) 45 N. L. R. 313.2 (1944) 46 N. L. R. 133.
8 Commissioner oj Stamps, Straits Settlements v. Oei Tjong Swan (1933) A. C. 37&at 387.
212
Dias Bandaranaydke v. Perera.
is afforded by what the legislature has itself said For my part I amunable to read into the words “ in the opinion of the Court, reasonablyrequired ” the express provisions of section 5 (1) (d) of the Increase ofRent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 or of section 3 of theRent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933.Whether a landlord’s demand is reasonable or not will depend on thecircumstances of a particular case. The onus is on him to satisfy theCourt that his requirement is reasonable. Once the Court is satisfiedthat the prenises are reasonably required by the landlord for any of thepurposes mentioned in section 8 (c) the Court is not in my view entitledto take into account the tenant’s difficulties of finding accommodation.
Learned Counsel stressed that the issue framed in the case is whetherthe premises are reasonably required for the respondent’s business butthat the learned Commissioner has held that he is satisfied that theyare required for his occupation. As I pointed out earlier the respondent’splaint avers that they are required for his occupation and in his evidencehe has stated at length why he wants them. In the circumstances I amnot prepared to hold that the discrepancy between the issue and thepleadings is in this case a good ground for setting aside the Commissioner’sfinding.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.