018-NLR-NLR-V-59-K.-P.-BAGAWATHIYA-PILLAI-Appellant-and-M.-H.-ZAHEED-et-al.-Respondent.pdf
G8 .. ' H. Is. G. FERNANDO, J.—Bagawathiya Pillai z. Zahccd ;
1957Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.
K. P. BA G A WAT PEI Y A PILLAI, Appellant, and M. H. ZAHEEDel al., Respondents .
S. G. 69—C. B. Colombo, 57,670
Rent Restriction Act, .Vo. 29 of 194S—Joint landlords—Requirement of leased premisesfor purposes of trade or business—Tenant’s liability to be ejected.
Where there arc two or more joint landlords ejoctment of the tenant cannot-bo sought by them under tho Rent Restriction Act on the ground that theyrequirp the premises for the purposes of trade or business unless they can show.that all of them jointly carry on the samo trade or business and require the– premises for tlio purposes of their joint venture or that each of them requires-tho promises for the purpose of his separate trade or business.
AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo. –
II. V. Perera, Q.C., with T. AruTananthan and 3Iiss 3Iaureen Sene li-ra the, for the defendant-appellant.
Sir Laiila JtajapaJ.se, Q.C., with 31. L. de Silva and Carl Jayasinghe*for the plaintiffs-respondents.
"Cur. adv. vult.. '
June 27, 1957. H. X. G. Fernando J—-
The plaintiffs in this ease are two brothers who seek to eject the defend-ant from premises of which they are admitted^’ the landlords. .-The-plaintiffs averred in their plaint that the premises “are reasonably-required by them for their use and occupation, for their business, and/or-professional use'
■ (ISS3) G S.'C. C. TO.
H. >T. G. FERNANDO, J.—Bagaicalhiya Pillai.v. SCahccil
CO
.The 1st plantiff is a Proctor who fears impending ejectment from the
office occupied by him of which the landlord is the Council of PegaiEducation. The 2nd plaintiff is described as an Insurance Agent andIndenting Agent who at present has no proper office but is allowed tooccupy an office belonging to a friend. The learned Commissioner hasheld that the 1st plaintiff's case is the more urgent and pressing one andhas accepted the position that it is essential for the 1st plaintiff to be ableto utilise the premises in suit for the purposes of a Proctor’s office. Inregard, however, to the needs of the 2nd plaintiff there is no proper finding,the .Commissioner merely remarking that “he is not having a properoffice”. The 2nd plaintiff himself gave no evidence, and the extremelymeagre material on record relating to his needs is quite insufficientto establish for the purposes of the Act that he reasonably requires thepremises or any part of them for business purposes. The judgmentin favour of the plaintiffs had necessarily to be based solely on the factthat the jaremises are required by the 1st plaintiff and if this fact doesnot entitle the plaintiffs to judgment, the defendant must necessarilysucceed.'
In Corea v. Miiltucumaru, 1 Gunasekara, J. had to deal with a c*sowhere there were two joint landlords and he held, following the Englishdecision of 3Iac Intyre v. Hardcaslle 2, that the two landlords couldonly obtain possession of the house if it were required for occivpalion asa residence for both of them. The reasoning of Asquith, L.J., hi theEnglish case, although it has the result of causing hardship to landlords,appears to me, with respect, to be beyond criticism. If, as my brotherGunasekara held, it must be shown that the joint landlords both reason-ably require the premises when ejectment is sought for the purposesof occupation as a residence, it follows in my opinion that where jointplaintiffs rely on the ground of requirement for the purposes of trade,business, profession, vocation or employment, then only two views asto the operation of the section are possible, both of which areunfavourable to the plaintiffs in this case.
One view is that it must be shown that the joint landlords jointlycarry on the same trade, business, profession, vocation or employmentand require the premises for the purposes of the joint venture. Theother possible view would be that if each landlord has a separate trade,business, profession, vocation or employment, then each of them mustreasonably require the premises for the purpose of his business, trade,profession, vocation or employment..
In the present case it is not necessary for me to decide which of theseviews is the more acceptable because the plaintiffs have failed to establisha case which falls within either construction.
The appeal has to be allowed and the plaintiffs’ action is dismissedwith costs in both Courts. ..
. Appeal allowed.
1 {1954) 56N. L. It. 80.*-., 3 {194S) 1 A.. S. R. 696..