101-NLR-NLR-V-16-ABDUL-CAFFOOR-v.-MOHAMAD.pdf
( 888 )
Present: Pereira J.
ABDUL CAFFOOR v. MOHAMAD.
215—C. R. Colombo, 33,453.
Landlord and tenant—Notice to pay increased rent.
Plaintiff gave defendant (his tenant) notice on December 2391912, increasing the rent as from January 1, 1913. .
Held, that the notice could not be construed as a sufficient noticefor increase of rent as from February 1, 1913.
^ HE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, appellant.—There is norule which requires a landlord to give one month's notice for raisingthe rent. If the notice given1 on December 23, 1912, was notsufficient to enable plaintiff to recover enhanced rent from January 1,1913, it was sufficient to recover enhanced rent from February 1.
Counsel cited L. R. 3 Q. B. 303.
Goonemtna, for respondent, not called upon.
Gut. adv. vult.
July 17, 1913. Pereira J.—
I do not agree with the Commissioner when he says that thedefendant is entitled to six months’ notice before the plaintiff canalter the existing contract. No doubt six months’ rent was paidby the defendant to the plaintiff in advance, but it is clear thatby that means the parties could not evade the requirements ofOrdinance No. 7 of 1840. The tenancy still remained a monthlytenancy, and it was quite open to the plaintiff to terminate it orto enhance the rent by means of a legally sufficient notice. Theapplication of the amount deposited would be a matter of accountbetween the parties. If the tenancy is terminated before thatamount could be wholly applied in payment of rent, the plaintiffwould, of course, be liable to make good to the defendant any partof the amount not so applied. But the question has been raisedwhether the notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant for thepurpose of enhancing the amount of rent payable per mensem is asufficient notice. I do not think it is. The notice was given onDecember 23, 1912, increasing the rent as from January 1, 1913.
I did not understand the appellant’s counsel to contend that thenotice was a sufficient notice to render the defendant liable to paythe enhanced rent as from January 1, 1913; but he certainly
1918*
1018.
{Pbhbdul J.
AbdtdCafloor 9.
■ Mohamad.
( 884-^
contended that the notice was sufficient to render the defendantliable to pay the larger rent from the commencement of the followingmonth. No authority was cited in support of this proposition, andI am by no means prepared to uphold it. Admittedly, th^notice,if it had been a notice requiring the defendant to quit the house,would not have been sufficient to render the defendant liable toquit it at the end of January, 1918. For this reason, although thedefendant’s counsel endeavoured to draw a distinction between thetwo situations, the defendant could not be said to be liable on thepresent notice to pay enhanced rent as from February 1, 1913.The notice was bad for the reason that the time allowed was notsufficient. A notice increasing the rent means that the tenantshould either pay at the increased rate or quit the house. Now, areasonable notice to quit would in the circumstances be a month’s'notice. If a person giving a shorter notice is not entitled to claimthat it be construed to have effect from a date later than that fixedin it, I fail to see how he can be allowed to achieve, in effect, thesame object by giving an insufficient notice enhancing the monthlyrent payable.
I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal ditmieeed.