024-NLR-NLR-V-69-G.-RANASINGHE-Appellant-and-PODI-FERNANDO-and-another-Respondents.pdf
SIVA SUPRAMANIAM, J.—Ranaainghe v. Fernando
115
1966Present: Siva Supramaniam, J.
G. RANASINGHE, Appellant, and W. PODI FERNANDO and another,
Respondents
S. C. 41 j66—C. R. Ratnapura, 7581
Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 274)-—Section 9—Subletting—Joinder of tenant andsubtenant as defendants—Permissibility.
Where a landlord bases his action for ejectment on the ground ofsubletting in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the RentRestriction Act, there is no misjoinder in his joining the tenant and thesubtenants as parties-defendants in the same action.
.ApPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Ratnapura.H. L. K. Karawita, for 2nd defendant-appellant.
W. D. Gunasekera, for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 14, 1966. Siva Supramaniam, J.—
Ttie 1st defendant was, during the relevant period, the tenant ofthe plaintiff in respect of the premises described in the schedule to theplaint, which was subject to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, 1
1 (1963) 65 A', L. R. 494.
118
SIVA SUPRAMANIAM, J.—Ranaainghe v. Fernando
No. 29 of 1948. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant hadsublet the premises to the 2nd defendant without her written consent incontravention of section 9 (1) of the said Act, and she institutedthis action for the ejectment of both defendants therefrom. The firstdefendant in her answer denied the sub letting and stated that she hadallowed the 2nd defendant to carry on his business temporarily in thesaid premises. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant, in his answer,took up the position that he was a tenant under the plaintiff. He alsopleaded that the plaintiff’s action was bad for misjoinder of parties andcauses of action. The learned Commissioner of Requests gave judgmentin favour of the plaintiff against both defendants. Only the 2nddefendant has appealed against the judgment.
The appeal was pressed on both grounds relied on by the 2nd defendantin the lower Court. I see no reason to disturb the learned Commissioner’sfinding of fact that the 1st defendant had sub-let the premises to the2nd defendant.
As regards the plea of misjoinder, it is submitted that the properprocedure was -for the plaintiff to have filed the plaint against the 1stdefendant and then made an application to the Court under S. 18 ofthe Civil Procedure Code to add the 2nd defendant as a party. It isconceded that if the 2nd defendant had been so added the issues thatwould have arisen for determination between the parties were the sameissues that were in fact determined by the Court in the present actionand that the decree too would have been the same.
S. 9 (2) of the Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 274) provides that “ whereany premises or any part thereof is sublet in contravention of the pro-visions of sub-section (1), the landlord shallbe entitled in an action
instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction to a decree for the eject-ment from the premises of his tenant and of the person or each of thepersons to whom the premises or any part thereof has been so sublet.”In view of the terms_of this sub-section, I am of the opinion that wherea landlord bases his action for ejectment on the provisions of section9 of the Rent Restriction Act, there is no misjoinder in his joining thetenant and the subtenants as parties-defendants in the same action.
The learned Commissioner’s decision is correct and I dismiss theappeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.