075-NLR-NLR-V-69-CHARLES-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-T.P.-DE-COSTA-Respondent.pdf
381
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Charles Fernando v. de Costa
1967Present: Abeyesundere, J., and Tennekoon, J.CHARLES FERNANDO, Appellant, and T. P. DE COSTA, RespondentS. C. 674/64—D. C. Negombo, 28/RE
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966—Section 4 (6)—Scope—RentRestriction Act, s. 12 A (1) (a).
Section 4 (6) of tho Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966, doesnot apply to a pending action in which ejectment of a tenant is claimed undersection 12A (1) (a) of the principal Act on the ground that rent has been inarrears for three months or more after it has become due.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Negombo.
J.A. L. Cooray, with D. A. Theverapperuma, for the Defendant-Appellant.
J.W. Subasingke, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
March 11, 1967. Abeyesundere, J.—
This action was instituted on 1st March, 1963 by the plaintiff for theejectment of the defendant who was his tenant of the premises described
382
ABEYE3UNDERE, J.—Charles Fernando v. de Costa
in the plaint, and for the recovery of arrears of rent. The learnedDistrict Judge who tried the action entered judgment and decree infavour of the plaintiff. Application was made to the District Court forthe execution of the decree and on that application writ was issued andexecuted on 26th December, 19G4 restoring possession of the aforesaidpremises to the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal from thejudgment and decree to this Court. Pending that appeal, the defendantapplied to the District Court for a stay of execution of the decree of theDistrict Court and upon that application the learned District Judgeordered him to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 4,500 in cash for thepurpose of staying the execution of the decree. The defendant has alsoappealed from the order of the learned District Judge ordering securityto be paid in cash.
We shall now consider the appeal of the defendant from the judgmentand decree of the learned District Judge. Mr. J. A. Cooray appearingfor the defendant-appellant submitted that by section 2 of the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1966, a new Section 12A wasinserted in the Rent Restriction Act, that by virtue of the provisions ofsection 4 of the said Act No. 12 of 1966, the new section 12A was deemedto have come into operation on 20th July, 1962, and that by reason ofthe provisions of paragraph (b) of the said section 4, the appeal of thedefendant-appellant was null and void. Under the said section 12A, anaction for the ejectment of the tenant of any premises to which the RentRestriction Act applies and the standard rent of which for a month doesnot exceed one hundred rupees is permitted if the ground on which suchejectment is sought is arrears of rent for three months or more. Theground of ejectment pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent was that the rentof the premises in suit was in arrears for three months or more after it hadbecome due. Counsel for the defendant-appellant and counsel for theplaintiff-respondent agreed that the standard rent of the premises in suitfor a month did not exceed one hundred rupees at the time when theaction was instituted and that the ground on which the plaintiff-respondent sought the ejectment of the defendant-appellant was that thelatter had been in arrears pf rent from 1st October, 1962 to 1st March, 1963.It is therefore clear that the said section 12A was no bar to the actioninstituted by the plaintiff-respondent. For that reason we are unable touphold the submission of counsel for the defendant-appellant that theappeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judgeis null and void by reason of paragraph (6) of section 4 of thesaid Act No. 12 of 1966.
We now proceed to examine the merits of the judgment and decree ofthe learned District Judge. Issue two relates to the question whether thedefendant-appellant was in arrears of rent from 1st October, 1962, andissue four relates to the question whether the plaintiff-respondent isentitled to eject the defendant from the premises in suit. Both thoseissues have been answered by the learned District Judge in favour of the
SRI 6KANDA RAJAH, J-—Saranena v. Pemawathie
383
plaintiff-respondent. We do not see any reason to interfere with thefindings of the learned District Judge in regard to issues two and four.We therefore dismiss with costs the defendant-appellant’s appeal from thejudgment and decree of the learned District Judge.
Tennekoon, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.