021-NLR-NLR-V-65-A.-H.-A.-SAMAD-Appellant-and-P.-M.-ALICE-NONA-Respondent.pdf
94
T. S. FBRSMM50, $<r-€amo& v. Atice&ena
—«“• — –
Present: T. S. Fernando, J. .
A. H. A. SAMAD, Appellant, and P. M. AXICE NONA, Respondent
S. G. 34 of 1962—G. K. Kurunegala, 1258
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961—-Sections 6, 13 (J), 13 (2)—Rentin arrear for three months—Action in ejectment—Sufficiency of one month’snotice of the termination of the tenancy—Interpretation Ordinance {Cap. 2), s. 5.
Under the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, as amended by the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961, a landlord could, during theperiod of two years commencing on 20th July 1960, bring an action against atenant defaulting in payment of rent only if such default extended to being inarrear for three months. Where rent has been in arrear for three months,there is nothing in the Act requiring x further three months’ notice of termina-tion of tenancy. There is only apparent and not real conflict between section6 and section 13 (1) of the Amendment Act.
A landlord instituted action in ejectment against his tenant on 4th October1961 on the ground that rent was in arrear for three months from 1st January1961. One month's notice to quit had been given on 7th May 1961, and on27th May 1961, the tenant tendered to the landlord the arrears of rent.
Held, that the landlord was entitled to judgment in his favour.
Ap:
’PEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Kurunegala.
G. Ranganathan, for the plaintiff-appellant.
G. T. Samercwichrevte, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 14,1963. T. 8. Ebekahdo, J.—
The defendant is the admitted tenant of the plaintiff, and the latterby notice D1 dated 7th May 1961 gave the former notice to quit thepremises let on or before 1st July 1961 on the ground that the rent wasin arrear from 1st January 1961. There is no dispute that the rent wasin arrear for all three months as alleged in the notice.
T. S. FERNANDO, J.—Samad v. Alice Nona
95
The Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, was amended by the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961, which became law on 1stMay 1961. Section 13 (1) of the Amendment Act provides that "not-withstanding anything in the principal Act, the landlord of any premisesto which this Act applies shall be entitled to institute any action or pro-—ceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of such premises only on one ormore of the following grounds :—
that the rent of such premises has been in arrear for three months ;
Sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Amendment Act enacts that " theprovisions of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have come into operationon the twentieth day of July 1960, and shall continue in force for a periodof two years commencing from that date ”. It would be correct, there-fore, to say that section 13 (1) was in operation from 20th July 1960to 19th July 1962. If so, unless some other provision of law was in theway of the plaintiff, he was entitled during the two-year period above-mentioned to institute an action against his tenant on the ground of rentbeing in arrear for three months. The present action was instituted on4th October 1961, i.e. within this two-year period. The learned Com-missioner of Requests, in the view he took of another provision of theAmendment Act, viz. Section 6, felt himself obliged to dismiss the plain-tiff’s action on the ground that that section provides that the landlordshall not be entitled to institute an action for the ejectment of the tenanton the ground that rent has been in arrear for one month if the landlordhas not given the tenant three months’ notice of the termination of thetenancy, or if the tenant has, before such date of the termination of thetenancy as is specified in the landlord’s notice of such termination, ten-dered to the landlord all arrears of rent. It must be mentioned that thedefendant did by letter of 27th May 1961 tender to the plaintiff thearrears of rent.
Section 6 of the Amendment Act came into operation only on 1st May1961 and the learned Commissioner held that section 13 (1) of the Amend-ment Aot applies only to actions instituted prior to 1st May 1961, i.e. toactions instituted between 20th July 1960 and 30th April 1961. Thisaction having been instituted after 1st May 1961, in the view thelearned Commissioner took, section 6 required the plaintiff to give threemonths’ notice of the termination of the tenancy.
It does appear to me, with respect, that there is only apparent and notreal conflict between the two above-mentioned sections of the Amend-ment Act. To agree with the contention of the defendant in this casewould involve the conclusion that section 13 (1) (a) of the AmendmentAct was not in operation after 1st May 1961, or, in other words, that itsoperation has to be limited to the period commencing on 20th July 1960and ending on 30th April 1961. Recognition must be given to the inten-tion of Parliament that section 13 (1) was to be applied notwithstandinganything in the principal Act. The rule of interpretation is that every
90
T, S. FjERNaHOO, J.Smmd v. Alice Nona
amending Act shall be Sfead as one with the principal Act to which itrelates—vide section 5 of the Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2). Section13 (1) of Act No. 10 of 1961 applies, in my opinion, notwithstandinganything in Act No. 29 of 1948 as amended by Act No. 10 of 1961. Butassuming that it does not have application in that manner, and that theexpression “ principal Act ” means Aoi No. 29 of 194S as unamended, theexpression “ this Act" in the same section 13 (1) of Act No. 10 of 1961must receive the interpretation that it means this Act read with theprincipal Act. Therefore, during the period of two years commencingon 20th July 1960, the period of the moratorium as counsel for the plaintiffdescribed it, a landlord could bring an action against a tenant defaultingin payment of rent only if such default extended to being in arrear forthree months. Where rent has been in arrear for three months, there isnothing in the Act requiring a further three months’ notice of terminationof tenancy.
The judgment appealed from is set aside and a direction made thatjudgment be entered for the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint subjectto any adjustment by the Commissioner of the damages payable takingaccount of money, if any, paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after theinstitution of this action.
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs in both courts.
Appeal alloived.