BASKAYAKK J.—Rtumuhewa, v. Ruivanpatirana
1948Present: Basnayake J.MAMUBEWA, Appellant, and RUWANPATIRANA, RespondentS. O. 176—C. R. Matara, 2,440
Rent Restriction Ordinance—Premises required for trade or business—Must bein existence—Ordinance 60 of 1942—Section 8 (c).
The trade or business contemplated in section 8 (c) of the RentRestriction Ordinance is an existing trade or business and not one in'posse.
Appear from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Matara.
Christie Seneviratne, for plaintiff, appellant.
Azeez, for defendant, respondent.
December 17, 1948. Basnayake J.—
The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is, sinceOctober 20th, 1947, the owner of premises bearing assessment No. 1708in Chetty Street, Weligama. The defendant has been the tenant of thosepremises for nearly 13 years. When he first entered on the tenancy theplaintiff was only a co-owner with his'brothers and sisters. Some timeprior to the institution of this action the plaintiff acquired their rightsand became sole owner.
The plaintiff seeks to eject the defendant from the premises in questionon the ground that he requires them to conduct a business of his own.The defendant resists the action on the ground that they are notreasonably required by the plaintiff for “ his business ” as at presenthe has no business. He also states that he cannot obtain suitablealternative accommodation.
The learned Commissioner has dismissed the plaintiff’s action, holdingthat the premises are not reasonably required for the business of theplaintiff and that no suitable alternative accommodation is availableto the defendant.
It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff was not, either on thedate on which he instituted this action or at the time of the trial, engagedin any trade or business. Two years prior to the date on which he gaveevidence he had a cafe at a place called Pelena outside the Weligamatown limits, which he managed for about six months. He was nevera baker, and now he wants the premises occupied by the defendantto run a bakery.
I do not think that under section 8 (c) of the Rent RestrictionOrdinance, No. 60 of 1942, a person who has no trade or business in esseat the time of the institution of his action is entitled to claim any premisesof which he is landlord on the ground that they are reasonably required
BASTJAYAKR J.— Veihanayagam v. Inspector of Police, Hankesanturai 185
for the purposes of his trade or business. The words “ for the purposesof his trade, business, profession, vocation or employment ” to my mind,suggest an existing trade, business, &c. A business or trade in possecannot in my view be properly described as “ his business The samemay be said of profession, vocation or employment.
The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to succeed. The appeal is-dismissed with costs.
MAMUHEWA, Appellant, and RUWANPATIRANA, Respondent