064-NLR-NLR-V-55-C.-A.-SAMARAKOON-Appellant-and-A.-H.-K.-JAYAWARDENA-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Samarahoon v. Jayawardena
239
1953Present : Swan J.
A. SAMARAKOON, Appellant, and A. H. K. JAYAWARDENA,
Respondent
S. C. 182—G. B. Colombo, 40,122
Sent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948—Area of operation—Section 2—Interpretation.
Where the limits of an area which was within the operation of the BentBestrietion Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, are extended subsequent to the date ofproclamation of the Bent Bestrietion Act, No. 29 of 1948, the latter Act is notapplicable to premises situated within the extended area until such area isbrought witbin the operation of the Act by means of notification under section2 (6) of the Act.
J^_PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
H. W. Tambiah, with S. Ambalavanar, for the plaintiff appellant.
Vernon Wijetunge, for the defendant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 14, 1953. Swan J.—
In this case the appellant sued the respondent for ejectment from theRouse and premises called and known as “ Ediston Lodge ” situated atTJdahamulla. The respondent in his answer said that the appellant wasnot entitled to eject him inasmuch as the premises were situated in anarea which was within the operation of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29of 1948.
There were only two issues raised at the trial, namely, (1) does theRent Restriction Act apply to the premises in suit ; (2) if not, is theappellant entitled to a decree in ejectment. The learned Commissioneranswered the first issue in the affirmative. In the result the action wasdismissed with costs.
Mr. Thambiah appearing for the appellant contends that the RentRestriction Act does not apply. The area in which the premises are-situated was brought within the limits of the 17. C., Kotte, in 1951. It was-conceded at the trial that prior to 1951 the premises in suit were outsidethe U. C. limits.
In order to ascertain whether the Rent Restriction Act of 1948 applieswe have to look at Section 2 which provides as follows —-
“ This act shall apply :—
in every areadn which the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of
1942, was, by virtue of any Proclamation under Section 2 of thatOrdinance, in force immediately prior to the date appointed bythe Minister under Section 1 of this Act ; and
in every other area for the time being declared by the Minister by
notification published in the Gazette, to be an area in which thisAct shall be in operation. ”
240
SWAN J.—Samarakoon v. Jayawardena
It is not suggested that there was a notification at any time published,in the Gazette whereby the Minister declared the Rent Restriction Actto apply to the area brought within the limits of the U. C., Kotte,in 1951.We have therefore to interpret the meaning of Section 1 (a). The-appointed date referred to in this Section is 1st January, 194^. The simplequestion is whether the area in which the premises were situated camewithin the operation of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942,by virtue of any Proclamation under Section 2 of that Ordinance.
By notification in Government Gazette No. 9,084 of the 12th February,1943, the area within the administrative limits of the U. C., Kotte, was-brought within the operation of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60of 1942. By notification published in Gazette No. 9,773 of the 10th July,1947, the notification in Gazette 9,084 was cancelled and a new list of the-areas brought within the operation of the Rent Restriction Act waspublished. In that list we once again find reference to the area within theadministrative limits of the U. C., Kotte. Gazette No. 7,910 of the 4thMarch, 1932, published a list and gave the boundaries of the areas in whichUrban Councils were established. There we have reference to theadministrative limits of the Kotte U. C. which are described by physicalmetes and bounds. In my opinion there can be no question that thearea brought within the operation of the Rent Restriction Act of 1948by virtue of Section 2 (a) was the area within the boundaries mentionedin the notification in Gazette No. 7,910. Perhaps it was a casus omissus-on the part of the authorities not to have notified that the Rent RestrictionAct of 1948 would apply to the administrative limits of the U. C., Kotte,'as extended from the beginning of 1951. But upon an interpretation ofSection 2 (a) of the Rent Restriction Act I have come to the conclusionthat in the absence of a notification under Section 2 (6) the Rent-Restriction Act does not apply to the extended limits. In the result,the appellant is entitled to succeed. I would therefore allow the appealwith costs and enter judgment for the appellant as prayed for with costs;in the lower court which I fix at Rs. 31 ‘50. I think it only fair to allowthe respondent time to find another house. I would therefore make order-as follows :—
If the respondent pays allrent and damages up to 31st December, 1953,the costs of appeal and costs in the lower eourt which I have fixed at-Rs. 31.50 on or before the 29th December, 1953, and thereafter pays eachmonth’s damages on or before the 15th of such month commencing from15th January, 1954, writ of ejectment will not be executed till 30th June,.1954.. In default both writs may issue.
Appeal allowed.