057-NLR-NLR-V-05-FREUDENBERG-v.-KRISTNAN.pdf
( 186 )
1901.
June 18 andJuly 4.
FREUDENBEBG v. KBISTNAN.R., Colombo, 12,814.
8mall Tenements Ordinance, 1882—Meaning of small tenement.
Per Lawbib, A.C.J.—A small tenement need not be a single roomoccupied by one tenant. Many rooms may constitute one tenement,provided that the tenants therein do not pay more than Bs. 20 a month.
Where a tenement included thirteen rooms, and eleven of them wereoccupied by tenants paying in all Bs. 20 a month, and the remaining tworooms, the rental of which were estimated to be Bs. 5, were occupiedby the defendant who had the lease of the entire tenement,—
Held, that the landlord conld not proceed under, the Small TenementsOrdinance, but must seek his Common Law remedy.•
T
HIS was an application for a rule nisi under the SmallTenements Ordinance of 1882. The applicant sued the res-
pondent for the recovery of a tenement consisting of a row of'rooms standing on an allotment of land bearing Municipal assess-ment number 2 at Mill street, Hulftsdorp. The respondentadmitted that he was a monthly tenant of the applicant, and that
( 187 )
lie received due notice to quit the said premises, but he refusedto deliver up possession till the applicant compensated him forthe substantial improvements which he had effected by buildingon tiie land several tiled rooms at a cost of Bs. 1,600. It appearedthat originally there was only one room on the land, but the res-pondent had put up thirteen more. The applicant denied that-these rooms were put up with his knowledge or consent, but heagreed to allow the respondent to remove all the materials usedin the building of the said rooms.
The Commissioner (Mr. W. H. Moor) gave . judgment asfollows: —
“ The application is not to recover the one room originally'• rented to defendant, but to acquire possession of the row of■“ rooms which he subsequently erected on the land, comprising41 several tenements. I hold that the Ordinance does not apply.44 I dismiss the application with costs.”
The applicant appealed.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.
Bawa, for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
•4th July, 1901. Lawrie, A.C.J.—
The learned Commissioner holds that the Small TenementsOrdinance does not apply, why, he does not explain. I gather thatthe Ordinance does not apply, because the applicant wishes in thisproceeding to eject the respondent, not from one tenement only, betfrom several, tenements. He seems to hold that the applicant couldproceed against the respondent as regards the original room, butthat he cannot include other rooms or tenements since built oradded. That, I think, is met by the affidavit of the tenantrespondent, where he treats all the rooms as one tenement bearingthe No. 2, Mill street.
But Mr. Bawa urged that this tenant is an ingoraut man, and hemust not be bound by his admission (if admission it be) thatthere is one tenement No. 2, Mill street. Mr. Bawa contended thatthere were many tenements, not one tenement.
1 am not prepared to hold that a small tenement in the sense ofthe Ordinance must be a single room occupied by one tenant. I donot see why it should not apply to many rooms constituting onetenement, subject to this condition, that the tenement cannot belet for more than Bs. 20 a month.
Here Bs. 4 is all that the defendant pays to the landlord forthe whole tenement, but he alleges that since he made the
1901.
June IS andJuly 4.
( 188 )
1901.
June 18and
July 4
Lawrie,
A.C.J.
agreement to occupy and to pay rent, he has greatly improvedthe premises. If he proves that the rent is now more thanRs. 20 a month, he could take the case outside the Ordinance.
I will not delay this by sending the case bstck. The parties willagree as to the present rental. If it be below Rs. 20 a month, theaction under the Small Tenements Ordinance will be sustained.If it be above Rs. 20 a month, the plaintiff will be referred to hisremedy outside the Ordinance.
Since writing the above Mr. Bawa produced an affidavit by thedefendant that eleven of the thirteen rooms are occupied bytenants who pay in all Rs. 20 a month, while the remaining tworooms are occupied by the defendant, and he estimates the rentalof these to be Rs. 5 Mr. Van Langenberg was not in a positionto deny this.
Therefore I dismiss this proceeding under the Small TenementsOrdinance, leaving ■ the landlord to his Common Law remedyand the defendant to his defences thereto.