022-NLR-NLR-V-67-K.-S.-ARUMUGAM-Appellant-and-C.G.D.-CAROLIS-Respondent.pdf
1964Present:T. S. Fernando, J.K. S. ARUMLTGAM, Appellant, and C. G. D. CAROLIS, Respondent8. C. 244 oj 1961—Q. B. Colombo, 80058
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961—Seation 13 {!) (c)—“ Wantondamage."
The word " wanton " in section 13(1) (c) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment)Act, No. 10 of 19WI, means “ purposeless ”, and the expression “ wantondamage ” means purposeless damage of the kind which irresponsible schoolboys and soldiers of an invading army have been known to cause on certainoccasions.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
M. Tiruchelvam, Q.C., with S. Sharvananda and Mark Fernando, for
defendant-appellant.
K. N. Ghoksy, for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 14, 1964. T. S. Ebbnando, J.—
The only question arising at this stage in this action for ejectmentinstituted by a landlord against his tenant is whether certain damageto the premises let which the learned Commissioner of Requests hasfound was caused by the tenant is wanton damage within the meaningof that expression occurring in section 13 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction(Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961.
According to the findings of the Commissioner, the tenant has parti,tioned the entire ground floor of the premises in such a manner as tomake it impossible for any heavy articles of furniture to be taken up thestaircase of the premises. Although the premises had been let to thetenant, he does not appear to have lived there himself. Prom the mannerof partitioning it would appear that a number of other persons have beenliving in the premises, possibly put in there by the tenant himself. Thelandlord requested the tenant to quit by the end of April 1961, and itwas conceded by the tenant that he himself came into personal occupationof these premises only on 10th June 1961. He could not bring in hisfurniture through the front entrance because of the manner—alreadyreferred to—of the partitioning of the ground floor. He thereforeclimbed to the roof of the lavatory, then got on to the roof of the mainbuildincr, and took in through an upstair window a number of articlesof furniture hauled up to the roof with the aid of a ladder. Workmenhad to get on to the roof and move about thereon to manoeuvre the entryof the furniture through the window. A lorry load of furniture appearsto have been so taken in. Included in this lorry load were tig boxesand a wardrobe. In the result about ?50 tiles of the roof were brokenand some rafters and two beams had also to be replaced. The replace-ment of the damage cost the landlord a sum of Rs. 265. The rent of thepremises was Rs. 69 40 a month.
The word ‘ wanton ’ in the expression ‘ wanton damage ' in the contextin which it appears in the Rent Restriction Act should be given itsordinary meaning. According to the Oxford English Dictionary* theword ‘ wanton * (adjective) literally means * Undisciplined ’. One of themeanings of the word ‘ wanton * (verbl is ‘ to deal carelessly or waste-fully (with property, resources) I was referred by counsel to themeaning of the adverb ‘ wantonly * as ‘ not having a reasonable cause ’to be found in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary. I find that the referenceis taken from a judgment of Willes J. in Clarke v. Hoggins1. Thatlearned judge was there interpreting a penal statute and he held that themere fact of a man being instructed to deliver papers at a bouse of a thirdperson was no answer to a complaint charging him with having“ wilfully and wantonly ” disturbed the party and his familv by veryviolently knocking and ringing at the door at an unreasonable hour in thenight. I do not think the citation is of much assistance in interpretingthe adjective wanton in the statute we are here concerned with. In the
1 (1862) 11 G.'b. (N.S.) at pp. 551-52.
— 142 Eng. Rep. at p. 912.
context in which we find it in the Rent Restriction Act, I think the wordmeans ‘ purposeless and the expression ‘ wanton damage ’ meanspurposeless damage of the kind which irresponsible school boy? andsoldiers of an invading army have been known to cause on certainoccasions.
To partition a house in such a way that the doors thereof cannotbe put to one of their ordinary uses and, having done so, to take a largequantity of heavy articles of furniture over the roof through an upstairwindow causing not inconsiderable damage to the roof was, to my mind,to put the roof to irresponsible use. Notwithstanding that the tenantachieved his purpose of taking the furniture into the house, the damagecaused was reckless and pxirposeless. It was, in my opinion, wantondamage.
I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.