ASIA UMMA et al , Appellants , and CADER LEBBE, Respondent

082-NLR-NLR-V-47-ASIA-UMMA-et-al-Appellants-and-CADER-LEBBE-Respondent.pdf


230
DE SILVA J.—Asia Umma t>. Coder Lebbe.
1946Present:de Silva J.
ASIA UMMA, et al., Appellants, and CADER LEBBE, Respondent.236—C. R. Colombo, 95,122.
Lessor and lessee—Expiry of term of lease—Right of lessee to plead RentRestriction, Ordinance thereafter—Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of1942, s. 5.
Where a person enters into a lease for a 'definite term the relationshipof landlord and tenant expires at the end of the term and the lesseecannot, thereafter, rely on the Rent Restriction Ordinance to continuethe tenancy.
PPEAL from a judgment bf the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo.
J.Femandopulle, for the plaintiffs, appellants.
M.I. M. Haniffa (with him M. Abdulla), for the defendant, respondent.May 22, 1946. de Silva J.—
The plaintiffs in this case had by bond No. 1116 in May, 1941, leasedcertain premises situated at Kuruwe street, Colombo, for a term of threeyears commencing on May 1, 1941, for a consideration of Rs. 216 paid
1 (1861) 9 H. L. C. 114 at 146.* (1841) 1 Dr and W. 1.
Jinasekere c. The Attorney-General.
231
.in advance. The lease expired on April 30, 1944, but the defendantcontinued in occupation. The plaintiffs therefore instituted this actionfor ejectment of the defendant and for damages at Rs. 7 ‘50 per mensemcommencing from May 1, 1944, till he took delivery of possession. Thedefendant in his answer made certain claims in respect of repairs made byhim, and also in respect of the occupation of part of the premises by oneCader, and also relied on the Rent Restriction Ordinance to continuethe tenancy. The learned Commissioner of Requests after trial rejectedthe claim of the defendant for repairs and in respect of the occupation ofpart of the premises by Cader but refused to make order for ejectmenton the ground that the premises were not reasonably required by theplaintiff for her own use.
In appeal Mr. Femandopulle for the plaintiffs-appellants has raised apoint that the relationship of landlord and tenant expired with theexpiry of the terms of the lease and that thereafter the parties were inthe position of owner and trespasser, and therefore the Rent RestrictionOrdinance had no application.
The provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance seem to contemplatethe case of a tenancy which is terminable by notice, and though there isreference to the rent provided in a lease in section 5 of the Ordinancethat reference is to the rent payable during the term of the lease. Wherea person enters into a lease for a definite term it seems to me that therelationship of landlord and tenant expires at the end of the term, andit cannot therefore be said that there is a tenancy as between the parties.I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Rent Restriction Ordinance hasno application in this case. I allow the appeal and enter judgment infavour of the plaintiffs as prayed for with costs in the Court of Requestsand of appeal.
Appeal allowed.