SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—In re Senanayake216
1972Present: Samerawickrame, J.
Ln re D. S. E. P. R. SENANAYAKE (Inspector-General of Police)
S. C. 754170—Application in Revision in M. C. Colombo South, 17724/A
Government Quarters (Recovery oj Possession) Act, No. 1 of 1969—Section 1—Exparte application made thereunder—Duty of Magistrate to issue writ ofpossession forthwith in the first instance.
When an application for ejectment in respect of any Government quarters ismade ex parte in regular and proper form under the Government Quarters(Recovery of Possession) Act, the Magistrate has, in the first instance, no optionbut to issno writ of possession forthwith in terms of section 7 of the Act.
APPLICATION in revision in respect of an order of the Magistrate’*Court, Colombo South.
Sivarasa, Crown Counsel, for the petitioner.
H. M. P. Herath, for the party noticed.
March 6, 1972. Samebawiokramf., J.—
This is an application made under Section 7 of the GovernmentQuarters (Recovery of Possession) Act, No. 7 of 1969. In the applicationmade in the form set out in the schedule to the Act it is stated thatEleric Lanty Abeygunawardena, Inspector-General of Police waB thecompetent authority for the purpose of Recovery of Possession Act.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Actas it stood on the date of the application, it is the Deputy Secretary tothe Treasury or any other public officer authorised by him who is acompetent authority and that no authority from the Deputy Secretaryto the Treasury has been produced. Section 6 (4) however states thatevery application for ejectment shall be conclusive evidence of the factsstated therein. The statement made in the application that ElericLanty Abeygunawardena, Inspector-General of Police was thecompetent authority for the purpose of the Act muBt therefore betaken to be correct.
The learned magistrate took the view that notice should be servedon the party against whom the application for a writ iB made. He appliedthe principle of audi alteram partem, and refused the application madeto him. In point of fact after the present application was filed in thisCourt the widow of the police officer who had continued to be the occupierhas filed an affidavit. I have perused that affidavit and do not find injt any matters which are legally relevant to the question of ejectment.
8AMERAWTCKR AME, J.—In re Senanayakc
In view of the provision that every application for ejectment shouldbe conclusive evidence of the facts set out therein, there is little purposein notice being issued on the party against whom the application is made.It appears to me that this Act makes provision for the issue of writupon an ex parte application. It will no doubt be open to the partyaffected by an order for issue of writ, if he is able to do so, to bring tothe notice of the Magistrate any matter that may constitute groundfor asking that the order for issue of writ should not stand and thatthe writ should be recalled. It appears to me however that in the firstinstance, upon an application that is regular and in proper form, themagistrate has no option but to make order for the issue of the writ.
I set aside the order made by the learned magistrate and send theease back with the direction that writ be issued in terms of s. 7.
Order set aside.
IN RE D. S. E. P. R. SENANAYAKE (Inspector-General of Police)