112-NLR-NLR-V-73-J.-O.-DE-ZOYSA-Appellant-and-Mrs.-VICTOR-DE-SILVA-Respondent.pdf
576
THAMOTHERAM, J.—De Zoysa v. De Silva
Present: Thamotheram, J.
J.O. DE ZOYSA, Appellant, and Mrs. VICTOR DE SILVA,Respondent
S. C. 143168—C. R. Colombo, 95376IR.E.
Sent Restriction Act (Cap. 274)—Section 13 (1) (d)—11 Deterioration ” of premises let.
The demolition of a boundary- wall; of rontod promises by Ihe tenant mayancunt to causing deterioration of the premises within the meaning of section13 (1) (d) of the Rent Restrict ion Act.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.,
II. Rodrigo, with A sola Abe>jsinghe, for the defendant-appellant.
A. 0. de Silva, for the plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
*
October 2, 1970. Thamotheram, J.—
The short point I have to consider in this case is whether a deliberatedemolition of a boundary wall of a premises, without the consent of thelandlord, for a private purpose of the tenant can amount to deteriorationof the premises committed by the tenant under Section 13 (1) (d)'of theRent Restriction Act (Chapter 274).-
There is evidence that in addition to the damage to thejjgundary wallthere was some damage to the premises by the demolition, such as theexposure of a drain pipe, erosion of the earth and the weakening of theportion of the boundary wall which also served as a_ retention, wall.There m no doubt that a boundary wall is part of the premises. . I cannotsay that the learned Commissioner was wrong in holding on t-lie abovefacts that there had been deterioration (made worse) of t-he'premises bythe demolition of the boundary wall.
The appeal is dismissed-with cost3.
Appeal dismissed.