025-NLR-NLR-V-74-L.-L.-P.-SAMERAWICKRAMA-Applicant-and-I.-M.-SEBASTIAN-Respondent.pdf
Sam era irielram <* r. Sebastian
101
1971Present: Sirimane, J., and Thamotheram, J.L. P. SAMERAWICKRA3IA, Appellant, and I. M. SEBASTIAN,Respondent
5. C. 529IGS {F)—D. C. Colombo, 920IP. E.Conciliation Beards Act Ko. JO oj JOoS—Section 14—Civil dispute relating toimmovable property—Mode of proving that (he property is situated in aConciliation Board area—Absence of any evidence of a reference to Board—Effect.
1 ••—K 3713 <5yri)
SIRFMAXE, J.—Sameraicickra.-n a v. Sebastian
Yhoro, in an action instituted in n District Court for rent and ojoctmontrotating to premisos situated in a Conciliation Board area, tho defendanttakes tho point that tho plaintiff has failed to obtain a certificate from thoConciliation Board as required by section 14 of the Conciliation Boards Act,it would bo sufficient if, without calling any ovidonco, ho invitos tho attontionof tho Court in tho courso of his address to tho relevant extracts from thoGovommont Gazetto showing that tho promises in quostion aro situatod in anarea in which tho Conciliation Boards Act is in operation. In such a casoit is not necessary that there should bo ovidonco that tho disputo had bocnroforred to tho Board bj tho Chairman of his own motion or by ono of thoparties.
AlPPHAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
Michael Wanniappa, for the defendant-appellant.
E. A. G. tie Silia, for the plaintiff-respondent.
January 15, 1971. Sikimane, J.—
This is an action for rent and ejectment.
The defendant, raised the point that the plaintiff had failed to obtain acertificate from the Conciliation Board as required by Section 14 of theConciliation Boards Act No. 10 of 195S. The plaintiff stated in hisevidence that he did not know whether these premises were situatedin an area to which a Conciliation Board had been appointed. Thedefendant’s counsel called no evidence but in the course of his address,he had apparently invited the Court’s attention to two extracts fromtho Government Gazette and marked them as Dl and D2. These twodocuments proved quite conclusively that the premises arc situated inan area in which the Conciliation Boards Act is in operation.
The learned Judge held against the defendant on this questionfollowing the decision in II". A. C. \ tckremaratchi v. Inspector ofPolice, NiUainbuwa.1 He said that there was no evidence that any disputehad been referred to flic Board by the Chairman of his own motion, or byone of the parties and that he was bound by the decision referred toabove. That ease has now been over ruled by a Divisional Bench ofthis Court in II'. A. Nona ham y r. K. A. Halyrat Siha.2 This decisionis binding on us.
The judgment of the learned District Judge, which is based on the:arlier decision, must therefore be set aside. The plaintiff’s action isdismissed with costs in both Courts.
PiiamotiiERAM, J.—I agree.
Appectl allowed.
* {10TO) 73 .V. L. li. 2IT.
' {IOCS) 71 X. L. It. 121.