PAI'.'DITA-GUNAW'ARDEXE, J.—Samarakoon v. Gunadasa
Much as I respect the opinions of Samerawickrame, j., I find myselfunable to agree with him when lie also says, ibid at page 335 1 :—
“ It appears to me unlikely that the legislature intended thattenants of premises whose standard rent is below Rs. 100, should beliable to be ejected by reason of arrears of rent, even though therehad been a tender of rent before the actual institution of the action.It is not probable that the legislature intended that tenants of suchpremises should be placed in a worse position in this regard than thetenants of premises whose standard rent is in excess of Rs. 100.Nor is it probable that the legislature intended to place tenants ofsuch premises in a position of so much greater disadvantage comparedto that which they enjoyed under the law before it was amended byAct 12 of 1966. It is also relevant that the provision in sub-scction(2) which empowers the Court to permit a tenant to pay into Courtthe arrears of rent and in such a case, not to issue a writ of ejectmentis some indication that tho legislature contemplated arrears duo atthe date of institution of action.”
The language of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act 12 of 1966is clear and there is no room for thinking that the legislature “ slippedup ”, if I may be permitted to use such an expression, in inadvertentlyomitting what should have been there included.
“It isJnot the function of any Judge to dll in what he conceivesto be the gaps in an Act of Parliament/ If ho docs so, he is usurpingthe function of the legislature ” observed Lord Morton of Henrytonin the ease of Mayor and Si. Meltons Burnt District Council v. NewportCorporation. 2 ”
I would, accordingly, affirm tho judgment of the Commissioner ofRequests and dismiss tho appeal. The plaintiff is entitled to his costsin appeal as well as costs in tho lower Court.
Appeal dismissed.
{1069) 72 A*, h. 11. 333 at 333.
'■ {1951) 2 A. E. II. S39 at S47.