Lorensz v. Abdul Coder
1962Present:H. N. G. Fernando, J.LORENSZ, Petitioner, and S. L. M. ABDUL CADER,
S. C. 394—Application for Revision and/or Restitutio inintegrum in G. R. Colombo, 77793
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1961—Section 13, sub-sections (1) and (3)
—Effect thereof—Invalidity of consent decree.
The effect of sub-section 3 of section 13 of the Rent Restriction (Amendment)Act No. 10 of 1961 is that where an action of the kind referred to in this sub-section is pending on March 6, 1961, the Court would have no jurisdictionthereafter to enter a decree for ejectment. This want of jurisdiction cannot besupplied even by the consent of parties.
H. N. G. PETINANDO, J.—Lorenf>z v. Abdul Cuder
Application to revise an order of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
M. M. Kumar akulasinjham, for defendant-petitioner.
M. T. M. Sivardeen, for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 15, 1962. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
This action for the ejectment of the defendant from premises subject torent control was instituted on 24th October 1960. The ground forejectment was that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintifffor his own use and occupation. After Answer had been filed the partiesreached agreement as to the conditions of ejectment and a Minute ofConsent dated 24th May 1961 was filed in court whereby the partiesconsented to judgment as prayed for, writ not to issue until 31st August1961. In consideration of the defendant’s agreement to give vacantpossession of the premises the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant asum of' Rs. 3,000 and in fact that sum was paid and receipt thereofacknowledged by the defendant in the Minute of Consent. Thereafterthe Judge made order for entry of decree accordingly.
Counsel appearing for the defendant in the application for revisionmade against this order of the Commissioner relies on section 13 of theRent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1961. Sub-section 1 ofthat section provides that an action for ejectment shall not be institutedexcept upon one of the three grounds specified in that sub-section. Theground of requirement for occupation by the landlord is not one of thethree grounds specified in that sub-section 1. Sub-section 3 then pro-vides that where any action for ejectment instituted after 20th July 1960on any ground other than one of those specified in sub-section 1 is pendingin a court at the time of the enactment of the Amending Act, such action“ shall be deemed at all times to have been and to be null and void ”.
The effect of sub-section 3 of section 13 of the Amending Act is thatwhere an action of the kind referred to in this sub-section is pending onMarch 6th 1961 the court would have no jurisdiction thereafter to enter adecree fcr ejectment. This want of jurisdiction cannot be supplied evenby the consent of parties. That being so, the Minute of Consent inpursuance of which the learned Commissioner ordered decree to beentered did not confer jurisdiction to order ejectment. The only orderwhich the Commissioner could lawfully have made after March 6th, 1961was to dismiss the j. lain tiff’s action.
Subsequent to my reserving judgment counsel have informed me thatthe sum of Rs. 3,000 paid to the defendant was repaid tc the plaintiff.
Acting in revision I set aside the order of the learned Commissioner.Decree will now be entered dismissing the plaintiff’s action. I make noorder as to costs.
Order set aside.
F. LORENSZ, Petitioner, and S.L.M. ABDUL CADER, Respondent