076-NLR-NLR-V-57-KUTTAJEE-Appellant-and-KANAPATHY-CHETTY-Respondent.pdf
1955Present : Fernando, J.
KUTTA-JEE, Appellant, and K AX APATHY CHETTY,
■ Respondent
-S'. C. 101—C. P. Colombo, 51,611
Landlord and tenant—Requirement of premises for purposes of business of the landlord
Rent Restriction Act Ko. 29 of 1948, s. 13 (c).
A landlord cannot avail himself of section 13 (c) of the Rent Restriction Actto eject a tenant merely because he thinks it convenient that employees in abusiness carried on by him at a place not far from tho rented premises shouldreside in the rented premises. The matter of the place whero the emploj'ecsin a business reside is generally unrelated to tho cflicicnt carrying on of thebusiness itself.
jA^PPEATj from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
IT. Jayewardene, Q.C., with X. C. ■/. Ruslomjee, for the defendantappellant.
If 'alter Jayawardene, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vtill.
December 15, 1955. Fekxaxdo, J.—
The defendant appeals against a decree for ejectment which has beenentered against him on tire ground that the premises occupied by thedefendant are reasonably required by the plaint iff landlord for thepurposes of tire landlord’s business.
The defendant became the tenant of the premises in September 1051at a rental of Rs. 13 "70 per month and notice to quit was given to him inNovember 1953. The plaintiff allegedly requires the premises in orderthat workmen at his neighbouring rubber store and tire clerks employedby him at a Petrol Station can be accommodated in tho premises. Inso far as the workmen at the rubber store are concerned Counsel for theplaintiff-respondent has admitted that the judgment cannot be supportedon the ground that the premises are required for occupation by them.It remains to consider whether tho plaintiff is entitled to eject the defen-dant on tire ground tlrat ho requires tire premises for occupation by theclerks emplo3'ed at his Petrol Station.
There is no clear evidence as to the distanc-o from the Petrol Stationto the premises but it is clear that they are not in close proximity, theformer being at No. 291 Skinners Road Soutli and the latter at No.2S4Grandpass Road. The plaintiff had admitted that tho clerks work fromS a.m. to 6 p.m. and then leavo for their homes. No specific reasonwas urged to show that there is any necessity for the clerks to reside atthe premises in question, but I will assume that tho plaintiff reasonablyconsiders it convenient in the interests of his business at the PetrolStation that the clerks should reside at a place owned by the plaintiffand hob far distant from tho Petrol Station.
Even on that footing I do not think that section 13 of the Act contem-plates that the landlord should have the right to eject a tenant merelybecause he thinks it convenient that some employees of his should resideon tho premises occupied by the tenant. The matter of the place wherethe employees in a business reside is on its face so unrelated to the efficientcarrying on of the business itself that there must first be, either somecompulsion by law or some particular necessity or even ordinary usagein businesses of the type concernod, before it can be said that the purpose-of providing accommodation for employees constitutes a reasonable require-ment for the purposes of the business. In this case none of the threeconditions which to my' mind might be relevant has been shown to bepresent.
I would therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decree for ejectmentof the defendant. He will be entitled to his costs in both Courts!.
A ppeal allowed.