030-NLR-NLR-V-70-D.-S.-L.-HEWAGE-Appellant-and-Mrs.-L.-D.-BANDARANAYAKE-Respondent.pdf
TAMBIAH, J.—Hewage v. Bandaranayake
119
1967Present:Tambiah, J., and Alles, J.D. S. L. HEWAGE, Appellant, and Mrs. L. D. BANDAR ANAYAKE,
Respondent
S. C. 3*6166—D. C. Kandy, 7233jL
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, .Vo. 12 of 1966—Section 4 (1) (c)—Eviction of tenantin contravention thereof—Right of the tenant to be restored to possession.
The defendant-appellant, a tenant, was illegally ejected by the execution ofwrit in contravention of the provisions of section 4 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction(Amendment) Act, Xo. 12 of 1966.
Held, that the appellant should be restored to possession of the premises let.
./VpPEAL from an order of the District Court, Kandy.
T.B. Bissanayalee, for the defendant-appellant.
No appearance for the plaint iff-respondent.
September 9, 1967. Tambiah, J.—
The Defendant-Appellant is a tenant of premises which is governedby the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1966. This Actcame into force on 10th May, 1966. The Plaintiff obtained decree forejectment of defendant earlier and on 9th May, 1966, Proctor for thedefendant filed a petition and affidavit and moved to stay execution ofwrit for a period of one year on certain conditions. This application washeard by the learned District Judge on the 13th of May, 1966, and wasrefused. Execution proceedings had not terminated on this date.
The Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1966 enacts that“ proceedings shall not be taken for the enforcement of any judgment ordecree in any such action as is referred to in paragraph (a.) and where suchproceedings have begun before the date of commencement of this Act,but have not been completed on the date of commencement of this Act,such proceedings shall not be continued. ” (Vide Section 4 (1) (c) of Act 12of 1966). It is clear that the proceedings of 9. o. 66 in this case fallwithin the ambit of section 4 (1) (e) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment)Act No. 12 of 1966. Therefore the learned District Judge had nojurisdiction to refuse the application made by the defendant-appellant.Indeed, all proceedings thereafter are null and void. Unfortunatelyfor the defendant he was ejected on 20.5.66.
120
TAMBIAH, J.—Hewage v. Bandaranayake
Counsel for the appellant contends that the defendant should be restoredto possession since he has been illegally evicted from these premises. Insupport of his contention he cites the case of 63 N. L. R. page 31. Weagree with the contention of the appellant. We set aside the order ofthe learned District Judge and order that the defendant be placed inpossession of the premises. There will be no costs of the appeal.
Alles, J.—I agree.
Order set aside.