030-NLR-NLR-V-54-ISMAIL-Appellant-and-WETTESINGHE-Respondent.pdf
PTJL.LE J.—Ismail v. Wettesinghe143
1952Present: Pulle J.
ISMAIL, Appellant, and WETTESINGHE, RespondentS. G. 171—G. E. Colombo, 25,394
Landlord and tenant—Installation of electricity by tenant—Liability of landlord—“Improvements ”.
The installation of electricity by a tenant cannot be regarded as necessary“ repairs ”, the value of which can be claimed from the landlord.
^LpPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
W. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff appellant.
H- W. Tambiah, for the defendant respondent.
Owr. ado. miM.
April 24, 1952. Pttlle J.<—In this action the landlord sought to eject the tenant on the groundthat the latter had carried out unauthorized structural alterations causingdamage to the premises^ The tenancy agreement was recorded in awriting dated 9th December, 1948, and it took effect from 1st December,
The learned Commissioner came to the finding that the alterations1 Ponnamma v, Arumugam 8 N, L. JR, 223 at 226, P,G,
144
PUXiLE J.—Ismail v. Wettesinghe
were made prior to the commencement of the tenancy when the tenantheld the premises under one Samuel Nadar, who was himself a tenantunder the landlord, and therefore refused to grant a decree of ejectment.There was ample evidence on which the Commissioner could have reachedthat finding and the landlord’s appeal fails on this point.
• In his defence the tenant claimed in reconvention the sum of Rs. 300 onthe ground that he had “ effected certain necessary repairs to the premiseswith the knowledge and consent ” of the landlord. This claim wasallowed by the learned Commissioner on the ground that the tenant hadinstalled electric lighting costing Rs. 300. The question arises whetherelectric wiring fitted to a house and the lamps constitute movable orimmovable property. If it is the former, they cannot properly be regardedas “improvements” in applying the law as to compensation to which theimprover becomes entitled. The case of Chiniyah v. Mohamedtamby 1holds that electric lights installed in a boutique by a tenant cannot beregarded merely as ornamental improvements, but whether electric wiringand lamps constitute fixtures and not movable property is not discussed.
I am of the opinion that the claim in reconvention should have beendisallowed for the following reasons :—
The tenant applied for electricity and obtained a supply when his
contract of tenancy was not with the landlord but withSamuel Nadar. The application for electricity was dated26th July, 1948, electricity was supplied on 6tb November,1948, but the contract of tenancy with the landlord commencedonly on 1st December, 1948.
The installation of electricity by a tenant cannot be regarded as
necessary “ repairs ”, the value of which can be claimed froma landlord. Even if it can be so regarded, I fail to see how itsvalue can be recovered from a person who at the relevant timewas not the landlord but the owner who had let the premises to athird party under whom the present tenant became a sub-tenant.
Electricity was applied for and obtained by the tenant to suit the
peculiar business requirements of the firm called “ Electrons”.
While the landlord may have known before the contract of tenancy wasentered into that during the sub-tenancy the premises were fitted withelectricity, there is no evidence that he consented to what was doneduring the sub-tenancy. It would be singularly inequitable that thelandlord should pay the present value of electrical connections to atenant who is entitled to occupy the premises indefinitely against thelandlord by virtue of the Rent Restriction Act.
I would vary the decree appealed from by setting aside that part of itwhich orders the plaintiff to pay Rs. 300 to the defendant and the costs ofaction.
Each party will bear the costs both here and below.
Decree varied.
{1932) 1 C. JL. W. 228.