083-NLR-NLR-V-71-Mrs.-L-.-JAYAWARDENA-and-another-Appellants-and-V.-KANDIAH-Respondent.pdf
380
Jayawardena v. Kandidh
1968Present : H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.Mrs. L. JAYAWARDENA and another, Appellants, andV. KANDIAH, Respondent
8. C. 2167—C. R. Colombo, 87630fR. E.
Rent Restriction Act—Sub-letting—Quantum of evidence.
The 1st defendant, a tenant, permitted the 2nd defendant to carry on businessin the rented premises but the latter did not have exclusive possession andoccupation of a separate portion of the premises.
Held, that the facts did not justify the finding that there had been asub-letting to the 2nd defendant.
H. N. O. FERNANDO, C.J.—Juyaivardena v. Kandiah
381
Ar
PEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
C. Ranganathan, $.C., with N. S. A. QoonetiUeke, for the Defendants-Appellants.
H. W. Jayetoardene, Q.C., with R. D. C. de /Silva and Miss C. Lena-duwa, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
May 16, 1968. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
The learned Commissioner of Requests has entered decree for theejectment of the 1st defendant from premises No. 144, PanchikawatteRoad, Colombo, on the ground that a portion of the premises was letto the 2nd defendant without the consent of the landlord.
The defendants did not in their evidence deny that the 2nd defendantcarried on the purchase and sale of motor spares parts in the premises.It would appear that the premises consist of three rooms, the first ofwhich adjoins the main road. In this first room there is a counter,on one side of this counter is a space in which there are cupboards and atable, and on the other side of the counter is a space which providesaccess to a door leading to the two other rooms. In these two roomsthe 1st defendant (the tenant) carries on the process of electro-plating ofarticles, and the two rooms are occupied exclusively by her for thispurpose.
The evidence of the 1st defendant concerning the use of the counterand of the cupboards in the front room was uncontradicted. The 1stdefendant stated that her husband had for many years carried on thebusiness of electro plating in these premises and that the 2nd defendantused to help her husband in the business and also keep his own goodsin the premises. She said that after her husband died, the 2nd defendantused to help her in the business of electro plating by collecting ordersfor her and by attending on the customers who bring articles for plating.She further said that the cupboards belonged to her but that she permittedthe 2nd defendant to keep some of his articles in the cupboards. Havingregard to the nature of the premises there can be no doubt as to the truth ofthe evidence that the 1st defendant’s receipt books and letterheads arekept on a table which stands by the side of the counter.
As I have pointed out, the plaintiff called no evidence to contradictthe defence testimony, that the 1st defendant had a right of access to theentire space in the front room and that the furniture in that room wasused by both defendants^
382Heath tfc Co. (Ceylon1 Ltd. u. Kariyawaeom
It is clear therefore that the 2nd defendant had no exclusive right tothe use of the front room or even to the use of the space and the furnitureon one side of the counter.
The learned Judge’s conclusion of fact that the 2nd defendant didcarry on business in the premises, however correct it was, did not justifythe finding that there has been a sub-letting to the 2nd defendant;whatever the arrangement between the parties may have been, itconferred no right on the 2nd defendant to the exclusive possessionand occupation of a separate portion of the premises.
The judgment and decree are set aside and the plaintiff’s action isdismissed with costs in both Courts.
Appeal allowed.