127-NLR-NLR-V-55-K.V.-SARIS-APPUHAMY-Appellant-and-CEYLON-TEA-PLANTATIONS-CO.-LTD.-Respon.pdf
ROSE C.J.—Saris Appuhamy v. Ceylon Tea Plantations Co., Ltd.
447
1953Present: Rose C.J.
)
K.V. SXRIS APPUHAMY, Appellant, and CEYLON TEAPLANTATIONS CO., LTD., Respondent
S. C. 86—C. R. Nuwara Eliya, 19,155
Sent Sestriction Act, No. 29 of 19 IS—Section 13 (1) (d)—Interpretation
If a tenant of premises to which, the Rent Restriction Act applies is con vie–ted cf an offence which has been committed on the premises and for thepurpose of committing which the premises have been used, he is liable to beejected by his landlord on the ground that he has been convicted of using thepremises for an illegal purpose within the meaning of section 13(1) (d) of the Act.
^VpPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Nuwara Eliya.
B. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with D. S. Jayamickreme, for the defendant-appellant.
. . #
H. IF. Jayewardene, with D. R. P. Goonetilleke and P. Ranasinghe,for the plaintiff respondent.
October 28, 1953. Rose C.J.—
In this case the defendant was ejected on the ground that he had beenconvicted of using the premises in question, a boutique, for an illegalpurpose within the meaning of section 13 (1) (d) of the Rent RestrictionAct, No. 29 of 1948. It appears that the tenant was convicted of an offencecontra section 4 of Protection of Produce Ordinance (Cap. 28) in thathe was found in possession of three gunny bags containing manufacturedtea dust and eight gunny bags containing tea sweepings in suchcircumstances as it was reasonable to suspect that the same were nothonestly in his p jssession and that he was unable to give a satisfactoryaccount of his possession thereof. The fact of his conviction was notdisputed. It appears that these eleven bags were found in the boutiquewhich is in suit.
Now, Counsel for the appellant urges that there is no sufficient evidencethat these premises were made use of for an illegal purpose, but it seemsto me that the matter falls within the principle which has been laid downby the learned Judges in the case of Schneiders & Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams1.There Scrutton L.J. says at page 310 “ I come to the conclusion that theconviction need not be for using the premises for one or another immoralor illegal purpose fend that it is enough if there is a conviction for a crimewhich has been committed on the premises and for the purpose of .com-mitting which the premises have been used ; but that it is not enoughthat the tenant has been convicted of a crime with which tbjc premises'have nothing to do beyond merely being the scene of its commission ”1
(1925) 1 K. B. 301.
44 8
FERNANDO A.J.—Premaratne v. Oliver de Silva
It seems to me that the learned Commissioner was fully entitled to come.to the view that this was a ease in which the premises wer^ made use of-for the purpose of storing this tea which was reasonably suspected tohave been stolen. That being so, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.