078-NLR-NLR-V-05-ELLIS-v.-DIAS.pdf
( 281 )
ELLIS t-. DIAS.
1900.June •">'
E. B. Creasy, claimant.D. C., Colombo, 2,157.
Laud Acquisition Ordinance. 1876, s. 18 (oV—Dispute between owner and lessee aslo the amount of compensation tendered by Government Agent*—Right oflessee to compensation—“ Person interested "—Costs.
Uiulor the Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1876, section 13 (c) a lessee is aperson interested in the land, and can claim his share of the compensation,as the value of the land acquired in the present case represents theinterests of the lessor and the .lessee.
The Government Agent is entitled to his costs, if the amount awardedby Court does not exceed the amount tendered by him.
"pHIS was a reference by the Government Agent of the Western
I Province under the Land Acquisition Ordinances. The first,second, third, fourth, and fifth claimants claimed compensation asthe owners of the land. The sixth claimant claimed compensationas the lessee of the land under the first, second, and thirdclaimants for the unexpired term of the lease.
At the trial the fourth and fifth claimants Withdrew theirclaim, and the first, second,, and third claimants expressed theirwillingness to accept the sum of Rs. 36,500 tendered by . theGovernment Agent as compensation.
The contest now was between the sixth claimant and his lessors,the first, second, and third claimants. The deed of lease was dated28th February, 1896, and at the date of the acquisition of the landby the Crown the unexpired term of the lease was two years.
It was contended for the lessors that a lessee was not a“ person interested ” in the land, and could not therefore claimcompensation.' –
The District Judge over-ruled this objection, and held that thesixth claimant was entitled to claim compensation in respect ofthe unexpired term of his lease, and as to the amount due to him,
T
( 282 )
J900. the District Judge found as follows:“ The value of the premises
June ,1.<■ ag accepted by the claimants is Rs. 36,000. and the rental at
■■ 5 per cent, will be Rs. 1,825 per annum. The sixth claimant is“ entitled to the difference between Rs. 1,825 .ukI the Rs. 1,200“ rent stipulated by the lease. For the unexpired two years of
“ the lease, the sixth claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,250The
“ first, second, and third claimants to pay costs of the sixth“ claimant in the class in which compensation has been awarded" to him. ”
The first, second, and third claimants appealed.
The case came on for argument before Lawrie, •).. andBrowne, A.J., when their Lordships, not being agreed, orderedthe case to be set down for hearing before the Collective Court,which on the 8th -lone consisted of Bonsku. C.-T., Moncrejff, -T.,.and Browne, A.J.
Van Langenberg, for first, second, and third appellants.
Baum, for sixth respondent, claimant.
Loos, for plaintiff, respondent.
8th June, 1900. Bonser. C.J.—
I should have thought this a perfectly plain case had not twonf my learned brothers been unable to agree in their judgments.
The appellants were the owners of a certain property which wasacquired by the Government under the provisions of the LandAcquisition Ordinance. The respondent was a lessee for a termof five years, of which term at the date of the acquisition twoyears were unexpired.
The Government Agent gave notice to the parties that hewished to acquire the land, and he gave them notice to attend andstate theirclaims tocompensation. He tendereda certain
amount, which the parties were unwilling to accept, and there-upon, as required by the Ordinance, he referred the matter to theDistrict Court. The case was complicated by the fact that twopersons attended and claimed to be owners in competition withthe appellants. However, when the case got to the DistrictCourt thatclaim' was withdrawn, and thedisputeabout the
amount ofcompensationwas settled by theappellants aud the
respondentagreeing toaccept the amountwhichhad been
tendered, but the appellants and the respondent were unable toagree as to the division of the purchase money. The appellantsclaimed the whole of the compensation, contending that the lesseewas not a person interested within the meaning of the Ordinance,and that if he had any claim to compensation, for being ejected
( 283 )
from the premises, he must get it from the Government, quite1900.
apart from the Ordinance, in some way which is not explained.JuneS-
It seems to me that that contention is one which cannot be Bonseb, C.J.supported for a moment. The full value of the land is made upof the interests of the lessor and the lessee, and it seems to me tobe a monstrous proposition that the lessor should step in and takethe value of the lessee’s interest. I can imagine a case where thelessee’s interest will be' of greater value , than that of the lessor.
Take, for instance, the case of a lease for ninety-nine years. Thevalue of the lessor’s interest will in that case .be practically nil.
It seems to me that such a contention* has only to be stated toshow how unreasonable and absurd it is. The appeal on thatground fails.
> Then, it was said that the Court had, in apportioning theamount to be paid to the lessee, allowed him too much. I amnot satisfied that the Court has allowed him too much. It wasnot shown that the District Judge has made any error of anymoment in this matter.
Then, it was said that the Government Agent ought not to havebeen allowed his costs; but section 29 of the Ordinance enacts• that he is to be allowed his costs if the amount awarded by theCourt does not exceed the amount tendered by him. In this casethe amount awarded did not exceed the amount tendered by theGovernment Agent, and therefore the Government Agent is .entitled to his costs.
Then, an objection vas raised by the respondent that-he 6ughtnot to have been made to pay any portion of the costs because h£did not dispute the amount of compensation which was tendered ,by the Government Agent. But there is an allegation in the libelof reference that he did dispute it, and there is an admission byhim in his answer of that allegation, and, therefore, I must takeit that he did dispute the amount of compensation tendered.
The judgment is affirmed with the variation that the sixthdefendant is to be paid on the 30th May, 1901, the balance whichshall then be due and unpaid in respect of the . five-twelfthsattributable to the first defendant’s share.
The sixth defendant will have his costs of this appeal.
Moncrbiff, J.—
J fully agree with the views expressed by the Chief Justice.
Bbowne, A.J.—
My only difficulty was as. to the way in which the lessee shouldbe paid his share of the compensation. I concur with the ChiefJustice, in the judgment delivered by his Lordship.