National Housing Act [Cap. 40 iy— Section 31 [1)—“House provided by theCommissioner for occupation by any person ”—Procedure for recovery ofpossession—Sections 2 and SG [4).
Certain mortgaged promises were put up for sale in terms of the previsionsof tho Notional Housing Act and bought by tho Commissioner of NationalHousing. Subsequently the defendant, who was in occupation of a houso ina lot on tho premises as tenant of a person who had derivod title from thomortgagor, entered into a fresh contract of tenancy with tho Commissioner.Tho defendant was woll aware that tho premises wero part of a housingscheme under tho National Housing Act.,
Held, that the previsions of Part V of tho National Housing Act woreapplicable to the houso occupiod by tho defendant. Accordingly, the spocialprocedure under the Act for recovery of possession of promises was availableto tho Commissioner.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Matara.
P. A. D. Samarasekera, for the occupier-respondcnt-appellant.
Ananda de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the landlord-applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 3, 1971. Samerawickrame, J.—
The appellant submitted that the procedure under the NationalHousing Act for recovery of possession of the house was not availableto the respondent in respect of the house occupied by him. Therespondent who is the Commissioner of National Housing had granted aloan under the Act to Issadecn & Co., on the mortgage of a land. Issadcen& Co. had defaulted and the land was put up for sale in terms of theprovisions of the National Housing Act and bought by the respondent.The appellant was in occupation of the house in a lot on the land astenant of a person who had derived title from Issadcen & Co.
Learned counsel for the appell-' n‘. referred to Section SG (4) of theNational Housing Act which pro. idej how delivery of possession wasto be given where a tenant was in occupation of any premises. Hesubmitted that the appellant was a tenant in possession on the date of thepurchase by the respondent and had attorned to him. He accordinglysubmitted that Part V of the National Housing Act did not apply to thehouse occupied by the appellant.
l3athi>uiyuke v. Karmiko Ha Samanya Harnharu Samilhiya
It appears to me however that this was not merely a ease where theappellant was a tenant on the date of purchase and attorned to therespondent. The appellant obtained a fresh tenancy from the respondent-.He agreed to pay him rent at Rs. 135'- per mensem whereas lie hadpaid his earlier landlord only Rs. 65/-. The. appellant also entered intotenancy agreement Rl which recites that the appellant Jiad been selectedas the tenant of house No. 6, Yehiya Road, Issadeen Town HousingScheme. Matara. . . .” The agreement also contains clauses which are notusually found in- ordinary tenancy agreements. The appellant hassigned the agreement Rl and in fact relied on it.
The learned Commissioner of Requests held that when Issadeen & Co.defaulted the respondent bought the premises and took over the controland management of the property. He referred to the fact that Housingobject under s. 2 of the Act included management and control of buildingsand building schemes. He held accordingly that these premises formedpart of the housing scheme admimstered by the resjrondent. In view ofthe tenancy agreement Rl he held that Part V of the National HousingAct applied to this house. He held that the deletion of clause 25 dealingwith rent-purchase did not affect- the matter. In terms of s. 31 (1),Part V would apply to every house provided by the Commissioner foroccupation by any person whether such occupation is upon the paymentof any rent or not.
It is a fair inference from the evidence that the appellant at all timeswas aware that the premises in question were part of a housing .schemefinanced and carried on in terms of the National Housing Act.
The finding of the learned Commissioner of Requests is supported bythe evidence and I sec no reason to interfere with it. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.