094-NLR-NLR-V-71-P.T.-SAMUELAppellant-and-M.-M.-MOHIDEEN-and-others-Respondents.pdf
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Kathiresu v. Sinniah
451
1968Present: Slrimane, J.
P. T. SAMUEL, Appellant, and M. M. MOHIDEENand others, Respondents
S. C. 142/67—C. R. Colombo, 91325
Landlord and tenant—Destruction of promisee by fire—Whether the tenancy cancontinue.
Where a fire breaks oat in a leased urban tenement and the.damage is soextensive that the tenement can no longer be used for the purpose for which itwas leased, the premises can no longer be regarded as still in existence for thetenancy to continue.
Ar:
'PEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
K. Shanmugam, for the Plaintiff* Appellant.
No appearance for the Defendants-Respondents.
452
SrRIMANE, J.—Samuel v. Mohideen
December 16, 1968. Shumane, J.—
The plaintiff in this action was a tenant of premises No. 117, PrinceStreet, Pettah, which has been used as a shop. He filed this action toprevent his landlord from reconstructing the said premises.
It is common ground that a fire had broken out in premises No. 119which is right above the premises in question. According to the evidenceof the Architect, which was the only expert evidence in the case andwhich the learned Commissioner has accepted, these premises have beendamaged by fire, in particular the roof. Before the roof can be replacedthe walls of these premises would have to be reconstructed from thefoundation. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that thepremises are still not completely destroyed.
The tenancy of an Urban tenement relates to the existence of a buildingand is unlike the tenancy of a land on which there is a plantation. Herethe evidence shows that even though the premises are not completely. destroyed in the sense that some of the walls are still standing, yet theleased premises can no longer be used as a building. In such a case,where the leased tenement is so extensively damaged that it can nolonger be used, for the purpose for which it was leased, it is impossible tosay that the premises are still in existence for the tenancy to continue.In my opinion the learned Commissioner was rght in dismissing theaction. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.