120-NLR-NLR-V-70-G.-P.-N.-SILVA-Appellant-and-THE-COMMISSIONER-FOR-NATIONAL-HOUSING-Respondent.pdf
#H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—-Silvaj>. Commissioner for National Housing 57$
1968Present : H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.P. N. SILVA, Appellant, and THE COMMISSIONERFOR NATIONAL HOUSING, Respondent
S. C. 97/66— C. R. Colombo, 91498
National Housing Act {Cap. 401)—Section 31—“ Occupier ”— Ejectment of a sub-tenant or third party—Procedure.
Part V of tho National Housing Act as originally enacted does not authorisethe special procedure for ejectment to be utilised against a person who is not anli occupier ” in the strict sense referred to in Section 31 of the Act. Suchprocedure therefore is not available in a case where the original occupier holdingunder the Commissioner sub-lets the premises or permits some other persog(not being a dependant) to occupy the premises.
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with W. S. Weerasooria, for the 3rdRespondent-Appellant.(
Mervyn Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the Petitioner-Respondent.
May 5, 1968. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
This is an appeal against the order made under Part V of the NationalHousing Act (Cap. 401) for the ejectment of the appellant from certainpremises. The appellant, according to the evidence, entered intooccupation of the premises as a sub-tenant under one Selvaratnam.Selvaratnam himself had apparently taken the premises from oneUnambuwa. Unambuwa was the person to whom the premises wereprovided for occupation by the Commissioner of National Housing.
Section 31 (1) of the Act provides that Part V shall apply to every
house provided by the Commissionerfor occupation by any
person and sub-section (2) of Section 31 provides that in Part Vthe expression ‘ occupier ’ will mean the person for whose occupation thehouse is provided. In the provisions of Part V as originally enactedthe prescribed procedure for ejectment was designed to secure theejectment of the “ occupier ” and his dependants. There was nothingin those provisions to deal with a case where the original occupierholding under the Commissioner sub-lets the premises or permits someother person (not being a dependant), to occupy the premises. On thisground I am compelled to hold that Part V of the Act as originallyenacted does not authorise the special procedure for ejectment tobe utilised against a person who is not an “ occupier ” in the strictsense referred to in Section 31.
It is clear from the amendments made by Act No. 36 of 1966 that theCommissioner himself has realised that there was a grave omission in theoriginal provisions of Part V. The appeal is allowed with costs and theor(fer of 9th Sepl&mber, made against the appellant,*is set aside.
Appeal allowed.