058-NLR-NLR-V-54-ABDEEN-Appellant-and-PARAMASIVAN-PILLAI-Respondent.pdf
238
Abdeen v. Paramasivan Pillai
1952Present: Palle J. and L. M. D. de Silva J.ABDEEN, Appellant, and, PARAMASIVAN PILLAI, RespondentS. C. 195—D. C. Colombo, 18,460
Rent Restriction Ordinance—Joint tenancy— Quantum of rent chargeable—Authorisedrent.
Where premises "were let as a whole to two persons jointly, each of whomoccupied separate portions in respect of which they paid rents separately to thelandlord—
Heid, that the rent received by the landlord for the two portions of thepremises should not exceed in the aggregate the authorised rent under the RentRestriction Ordinance for the whole premises.
239
h. M. D. DE STLVA J.—Abdeen v. Paramaaivan PiUai
jAlPPEAIj from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
B. WikramanayaJce, Q.O., with S. Thangarajah, for the defendantappellant.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with T. Somasunderam, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 4, 1952. L. M. D. de Silva J.—
The plaintiff in this case says that in February, 1945, he took premisesNo. 203, Keyser Street, Colombo, on rent from the defendant jointly withone Poopalarayan for an aggregate sum of Rs. 285 a month of which hewas to pay Rs. 85 a month and Poopalarayan Its. 200 a month. It iscommon ground that the authorised rent for the premises as a wholeunder the Rent Restriction Ordinance was a sum of Rs. 120*17. Theplain tiff says that there is an over-payment of Rs. 5,760 * 07 and of this heclaims a sum of Rs. 1,678*70 as his share. Learned counsel for thedefendant-appellant concedes that if the joint tenancy is established theplaintiff-respondent is entitled to the sum which he claims.
Upon the evidence the learned District Judge has held that the defen-dant “ did not enter into any specific agreement with one or other of thepersons in occupation with regard to letting to each only a portion of thepremises ” and he took the view that the premises bad been let as a wholeto the two persons concerned. Mr. Perera for the plaintiff-respondentcontends that there is one contract between the plaintiff, the defendantand Poopalarayan for the whole of the premises although plaintiffand Poopalarayan agreed to pay their shares of the rent separately to thelandlord. Mr. Wikramanayake contends that if the plaintiff and Poo-palarayan paid agreed amounts of rent to the defendant there were twocontracts and not one, but he admits that even in that case the twoseparate contracts would be in respect of the whole premises.
There is evidence upon which the District Judge’s finding that the pre-mises as a whole were let can be sustained and I am not disposed to dis-turb that finding particularly in view of the fact that the defendant hasnot chosen to give evidence and to state that two separate portions werelet to the plaintiff and to Poopalarayan respectively. There is evidencethat the plaintiff and Poopalarayan received separate rent receipts but thiscircumstance, although of some evidentiary value in support of the de-fendant’s case, does not conclude the case in his favour. There is alsoevidence that the plaintiff and Poopalarayan occupied separate portionsbut there was no definite demarcation between the two portions. Themanner of occupation could always be a matter of agreement betweenthe tenants themselves and would not by itself be decisive of the questionwhether the whole of the premises was let to both the persons or a dividedportion to each. The circumstances relied on by the appellant do notafford reason sufficient for disturbing the learned District Judge’sfinding.
240
L. M. D. DE SILVA J.—Abdeen v. Paramaeivan PiUai
The view we take of the nature of the tenancy renders it unnecessary togo into some of the difficult and complicated questions which arise out ofjoint tenancy and joint obligations. Upon the view taken by the learnedDistrict Judge that the whole of the premises were let the defendant couldhave recovered only the authorised rent under the Rent RestrictionOrdinance for the whole premises. The contention for the defendant hasbeen that two portions of the premises have been let separately, that eachof these portions is a “ premises ” for which no assessment has been madeand that he might charge for each of the two portions rent which in theaggregate exceeds the authorised rent. The whole of this contentionfails where the premises have been let as a whole.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
PuxiiE J.—I agree.,
Appeal dismissed.