1963Present:Sri Skanda Rajah, J.
A. C. P. JEREMIAS, Petitioner, and K. T. PERERA, Respondent8. C. 307j63—Application for Revision in C. R. lombo, 83165
Rent Restriction Act—Action in ejectment—Consent decree—Ci-n truction.
An action in ejectment in respect of rent-controlled premises was settled,and the relevant portion of the consent decree was as follows:—“If thedefendant pays damages for each month on or before the end of each and everymonth commencing from 28th February, 1963, without two consecutive defaultswrits not to issue till 31st March, 1965. In default of two consecutive paymentsboth writs to issue without notice
The rent for Februarv, 1963, was paid on 2nd March, 1963. The next paymentof rent for March, 1963, was made on 1st April, 1963.
Held, that there were two consecutive defaults and that the plaintiff was,in consequence, entitled to a writ of possession.
.A.PPLICATION to revise an order made by the Court of Reque«ts,Colombo.
W. D. Onnasekera, for the Plaintiff-Petitioner.
S. W. Jayasuriya, for the Defendant-Respondent.
December 3 3, 1963. Sri Skahda Rajah, J.—
In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for ejectment on the basisthat the defendant was his tenant and that the plaintiff required thepremises for his own use. The matter was settled and a consent decreewas entered.
The relevant portion of the settlement order runs thus “If the defendantpays damages for each month on or before the end of each and every monthcommencing from 28th February, 1963 without two consecutive defaultswrits not to issue till 31st March, 1965. In default of two consecutivepayments both writs to issue without notice. ”
The first payment of damages for the month of February was due on orbefore the 28th February, 1963, but the defendant sent a Money Orderdated 2nd March, 1963, though he enclosed it with a letter dated 1st March,1963. It would, therefore, be clear that this payment was not in termsof the settlement; for, it was paid after the 28th February, 1963.
The next payment was for March, 1963. The 31st of March fell ona Sunday and, therefore, in order to carry out the terms of the settlementhe should have seen to it that the money was paid on the 30th or at thelatest sent a Money Order dated 30th in order that it may be received bythe plaintiff on the 1st April, 1963 ; but, the defendant sent a MoneyOrder dated 1st April, 1963. Therefore, there had been two consecutivedefaults and the plaintiff was, in consequence, entitled to a writ ofpossession.
For these reasons I would set aside the order of the learnedCommissioner of Requests. The Plaintiff-Petitioner will be -entitled tothe costs of this application as well as costs of the inquiry held in theCourt of Requests.
Order set aside.
A. C. P. JEREMIAS, Petitioner, and K. T. PERERA, Respondent