Guilder v. Murugiah
1963Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.
A. GAUDER, Appellant, and P. MURTJGIAH, RespondentS. C: 159161—C. R. Matale, 13371/RE
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961— Section 13 (3)—Applicabilityof term “ proceedings ” to an application for writ of ejectment.
Where, in an action for ejectment, the application for writ of ejectment wasmade on 29th November, 1960, two years after judgment of consent was entered•on 16th September, 1958—
j Held, that the application for writ of ejectment could not come within thephrase “proceedings instituted after the.20th July, 1960” in section 13 (3)•of the Ront Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961.
SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—Gander v. Murugiah
PPEAL from an order of the Court of Requests, Matale.
Kadirgamar, for Defendant-Appellant.
S. Skarvananda, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
January 28, 1963. Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
This is an action for ejectment on the ground that the defendant-appellant was in arrears of rent for five months. The action was ins-tituted on the 5th of May, 1958. Judgment, of consent, was entered'on the 16th of September, 1958. Writ was not to issue for a period oftwo years, provided damages were paid regularly. Application forwrit of ejectment was made on the 29th of November, 1960.
Section 13 (*1) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of1961, came into force on the 6th of March. 1961. Section 13 runs asfollows :—
“ (1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the landlordof any premises to which this Act applies shall be entitled to institute 'any action or proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of suchpremises only on any one or more of the following grounds :—
(а)that the rent of such premises has been in arrear for three months ;
(б)that such premises have been used by such tenant or by any
person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenantfor an immoral or illegal purpose ;
(c) that such tenant or any person residing or lodging with him orbeing his sub-tenant has caused wanton destruction ordamage to such premises.
The provisions of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have come-into operation on the twentieth day of July, 1960, and shall continue
in force for a period of two years commencing from that date.
Where any action or proceedings instituted in any court on orafter the twentieth day of July, 1960, for the ejectment of a tenantfrom any premises to which the principal Act applies on any groundother than a ground specified in sub-section (1) of this section is orare pending on the day immediately preceding the date of commence-ment of this Act, such action or proceedings shall be deemed at alltimes to have been and to be null and void.
No suit or prosecution shall lie against the landlord of anypremises to which the principal Act applies by reason only of any actdone, or any action or proceedings instituted, by such landlord to oragainst the tenant of such premises for the purpose of-ejecting suchtenant from such premises on any ground other than a ground specifiedin sub-section (1) of this section during the period commencing onthe twentieth day of July, 1960, and ending on the day immediatelyprior to the date of commencement of this Act.”
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Piyadasa Perera v. Tiasera
> It is submitted by the defendant-appellant that this application for.writ is a proceeding for ejectment, and as such it is barred by the provi-sions of Section 13, because this application for writ was made on the29th of November, 1960, i.e., after the 20th of July, 1960, referred to inSection 13 (3)- It has been held in the case of Ouneratne v.' Perera1that ah application for writ of ejectment could not come within thephrase “ proceedings instituted after the 20th of July, 1960”. I am inrespectful agreement with this view. Therefore, I dismiss the appealwith costs.
A. GAUDER, Appellant, and P. MURUGIAH, Respondent