076-NLR-NLR-V-64-JOSLIN-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-J.-MADANAYAKE-Respondent.pdf
SANSONI, J.—Fernando ». Madanayake
455
1962Present: Sansoni, J.
JOSLIN FERNANDO, Appellant, and J. MADANAYAKE, Respondent
S.C. 165—C. B. Colombo, 78,538
Landlord and tenant—Death of tenant—Wrongful occupation of premises thereafterby tenant'8 daughter—Landlord's suit for ejectment—Jurisdiction of Court.
After the death of a tenant, the landlord (plaintiff) sought to eject the tenant’sdaughter (defendant) who was in wrongful occupation of the premises in questionas trespasser from the time of the tenant’s death. The defendant too deniedthat there was any privity of contract between her and the plaintiff.
Held, that, as the premises let were worth more than Rs. 300, the Court ofRequests had no jurisdiction to try the action.
.A-PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
Thillainathan, for Defendant-Appellant.
W.D. Qunasekera, with N. SenanayaJce, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
July 26, 1962. Sansoni, J.—
There is no question that the premises in dispute in this case are worthconsiderably more than Rs. 300/-. The plaintiff brought this actionagainst the defendant alleging that he had let the premises to oneW. M. Fernando as tenant, and that on the death of W. M. Fernando,the defendant, who is his daughter, continued to be in possession. Theplaintiff sued the defendant on the ground that the defendant was inwrongful occupation from the time of W. M. Fernando’s death.
The prayer is* for ejectment and damages. It is clear from the plaintthat this is not an action against a tenant, who has been given noticebut is overholding, but against a trespasser who never had a right tobe on the premises. The defendant has filed three answers. I needonly look at the final answer, because it is upon that answer that thecase went to trial. In that answer the defendant denied that theplaintiff was the owner of the premises. She also denied that W. M.Fernando was a tenant under the plaintiff. She denied that there wasany privity of contract between her and the plaintiff. In other words,the defendant never, at the time the case went to trial, conceded thatthe plaintiff was her landlord, and she disputed the plaintiff’s title. Inthose circumstances, I think it is correct to say that the court had nojurisdiction to try this action. The case, in my view, falls within theruling of Tambiah, J., in Silva v. Abeysundera1. I need not go into thefacts, although I must confess that I find it difficult to follow the reason-ing in the judgment of the lower Court, with regard to the facts and theposition of the parties, which the learned Commissioner has set out.On! the view I take, I hold that this case fails on the question of juris-diction, and the plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costs in both courts.
Appeal allowed,
1 (1961) 63 If., it. It. 94.