062-NLR-NLR-V-73-G.-H.-A.-PERERA-Appellant-and-MRS.-CHITRA-DE-VOS-Respondent.pdf
Perera v. de Vos
357
1970Present : Siva Supramaniam. J.H. A. PERERA, Appellant, and Mrs. CHITRA DE VOS, Respondent£. C. 165/6S—C. R. Panadura, 17742Rent Restriction—Urban Council area—Annual value of rent-controlled premises•—-Increase thereof to annual value of “ excepted premises ”—Effect—Local Autho-rities (Special Provisions) Act No. 4 of 10C0, s. 3 (I) (2)—Rent Restriction Act(Cap. 274), Schedule, Regulation 2.
The annual value of certain rented premises in an Urban Council aroa wasraised in 1903 to Rs. 1,02G upon an objection to tho previous assessment lodgedby tho landlord {tho plaintiff). Subsequently tho landlord sought a decree ofejectment against tho tenant (tho defendant) on tho basis that tho promises were“ oxcepted premises ” within tho meaning of Rcgulotion 2 of tho Schedule totho Rent Restriction Act-, but his action was dismissed. During tho pendencyof tho landlord's present appeal to tho Supremo Court, section 3 of tho LocalAuthorities (Special Provisions) Act Xo. 4 of 1909 was enacted with retrospectiveeffect., i
Held, that tho Urban Council acted within its powers in increasing tho annualvaluo of tho premises in 1963. Tho premises were " oxcepted promises ” forthe purposo of tho Rent Restriction Act and tho termination by tho plaintiffof the defendant’s tenancy was valid.
358
SIVA SUPRAMANIAM, J.—Ptrtra v. de Vos
A. PPJ2AL from a judgment of the Court- of Requests, Panadura.
E.P. Coofpy, for tlie plaintiff-appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, Q.G. with G. D. C. Weerasinyhe, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 12, 1970. ’ Siva Supbamaxxam, J.—The plaintiff, a landlord, instituted this action to eject the defendant,his tehant, from the premises, the subject of the tenancy, on the groundthat the tenancy. had been determined by a valid nbf ico to quit. Heclaimed that the premises were- “ excepted.premises ’’ under, the Rent. Restriction Act.; It is-conceded that if the premises are “excepted‘premises/’the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.
The premises in question arc situated within the limits of the UrbanCouncil of SToratuwa. The defendant’s original contract of tenancy waswith the plaintiff's mother and from 1st November 1967 the defendantattorned tenancy to the plaintiff. The annual value of the premiseshad been increased by the Urban Council of Moratuwa from time to timeafter the commencement of the defendant’s tenancy. Nevertheless,until the year 1963 the amount of the annual value was such that the. premises continued to be governed by the provisions of the Rent Restric-tion Act. From 1963 the annual value was raised to Rs. 1,026 on anobjection to the previous assessment lodged by the landlord. .
In terms of t-ho Regulation 2 contained in the Schedule to the RentRestriction Act, residential premises in a town within the meaning of theUrban Council Ordinance, the annual value of which exceeds Rs. 1,000falls within the category of " excepted premises ”. Moratuwa is a townwithin the meaning of the Urban Councils Ordinance and the premises inquestion consequently became “ excepted premises ” when the annualvalue was raised to Rs. 1,026 in 1963.
It was, however, contended by the defendant that the Urban Councilhad no legal right to increase the annual value in such a way as to take thepremises which were rent controlled out of the operation of the RentRestriction Act. The learned Commissioner, following the decision ofthe Privy Council in Pori of Spain Corporation v. Gordon Grant Co. Ltd.1,held that it was illegal for the Urban Council to have increased theannual value so as to take away the premises in question from theoperation of the Rent Act. He accordingly found that t-ho premiseswere not “excepted premses ” and dismissed the plaintiffs’"action. . *
* {1955) A. O. 389.
Dharmasena r. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadugannauxt
359
Subsequent to the decision of the case in the lower Court, tho lair hasbeen amended by the Local Authorities (Special Provisions) Act No. 4of 1909. Section- 3 (1) of that Act provides for tho amendment ofsection 249 of the Urban Councils Ordinance by the addition of thefollowing subsection:—
“ In determining for the purposes of this Ordinance the annualvalue of any premises to which the Rent Restriction Act applies,and in assessing the annual rent of such premises for the purpose ofsuch determination, an Urban Council shall not have regard to theprovisions of that Act. ”
Under s. 3 (2) the aforesaid amendment shall bo deemed to havo comeinto operation on 1st January 1949.
The Urban Council of Moratuwa, therefore, acted within its powers inincreasing the annual value of tho premises to Rs. 1,02G in 19G3. Thepremises are " excepted premises ” for the purpose of the Rent RestrictionAct and the termination by the plaintiff of the defendant’s tenancy wasvalid.
I set aside the judgment and decree entered by the learnedCommissioner and enter judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for withcosts in both Courts.
Appeal allowed.