011-NLR-NLR-V-69-K.-P.-C.-MOOSA-Appellant-and-MRS.-S.-R.-AMIR-Respondent.pdf
44
SIRIMAXK ,J.—iloosa c. Amir
Present : Sirimane, J.K.F. C. MOOSA. Appellant, and Mrs. S. R. AMIR, RespondentS. C. 116/65—C. R. Colombo, 84,804
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 10 GG—Sections 2, 3 and 4—Inapplicability to pending actions in respect of premises whose standard rentis over Ms. 100 per month—Inapplicability to restriction on sub letting—RentRestriction Act {Cap. 274), ». 9.
Whore a decreo for ejectment on the ground of sub letting was entered on11th May 1965 against a tenant in respect of premises the standard rent onwhich was over Rs. 100 per month—
Held, that pending actions relating to rented premises the standard rent ofwhich is over Rs. 100 per month ore not covered by the provisions of section 4of the Ront Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1966.
Held further, that sections 2 and 3 of the amending Act in no way affoct theprovisions of soction 9 of tho principal Act No. 29 of 1948 restricting sub lettingof premises.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
T. Samerawickreme, Q.C., with B. C. F. Jayaratne, for the Defendant-Appellant.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C., with E. B. Vannitamby, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
September 29, 19G6. Sirimane, J.—
The plaintiff-respondent had obtained a decree on 11.5.65, for eject-ment against his tenant, the appellant, on the ground that the appellanthad sub-let the premises in contravention of the provisions of section 9 ofthe Rent Restriction Act 29 of 194S. I see no reason to interfere with thefinding of fact, that the appellant had sub-let the premises, the standardrent of which is over Rs. 100 per month.
{1954) 1 W. L. R. 67S.
Ediriweera v. Dharmapala4!>
By section 2 of the amending Act 12 of 19GG a new sect ion, 12A (1) wasintroduced by which the right to institute proceedings for ejectment frompremises of which Hie standard rent fir a month did not, exceed it-:. 10ft.was restricted.
By section 3, the original section 13 was amended in order to make it.clear that the provisions of that section now applied to premises, thestandard rent of which was over Rs. 100 per month. The purpose of theseprovisions is to extend a greater measure of protection to tenants ofpremises where the standard rent is below It*. 100 per month.
By section 4 of the amending act the provisions of sections 2 and 3were made retrospective as from the 20tli -July. 1902. and accordinglyactions filed on or after that date and appeals to the Supreme Courtpending at the date of commencement of the amending act were declarednull and void.
I am attracted by the submission of .Mr. Rangamithan. that in thiscontext, the provisions of Section J were meant to apply to pendingactions filed in contravention of section 12A, i.e. actions relating topremises where the standard rent is below Rs. 100 per month.
But, it. was argued for the Appellant, by Mr. Samara wickrcma, thatbecause sect ion 4 (1) A refers to any action for the ejectment of a tenant.“ from any premises to which the principal Act as amended by this Actapplies ”, therefore the proceedings in this action (as indeed in all pendingactions where the standard rent is over Rs. 100 per month) should alsobe declared null and void. There is much to be said for this argument,though I am not- inclined to accept it. I ain also in agreement- with thesubmission made by Mr. Ranganathan for the Respondent- that in any'event sections 2 and 3 of the amending Act in no way affect the provisionsof sections ft of the principal Act 2ft of 194S.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.