104-NLR-NLR-V-66-P.-M.-THOMAS-Appellant-and-Mrs.-F.-A.-RODRIGO-Respondent.pdf
SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—Thomas v. Rodrigo
437
1964
Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.P. M. THOMAS, Appellant, and Mrs. F. A. RODRIGO, Respondent
Rent Restriction Act—Section 13 (7) (c)—Requirement of premises both for residence andvocation—Restriction of issue to residence only—Effect—“ Vocation
Where a landlord seeks to eject his tenant, under section 13 (1) (c) of theRent Restriction Act, on the sole issue that the premises are reasonably requiredfor his occupation as a residence, he is not entitled to judgment on the groundthat, according to his evidence, the premises are in fact required for the purposeof his profession or vocation.
Teaching of music for profit is a “ vocation ” within the meaning ofsection 13 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction Act.
0. T. Samerawickreme, for defendant appellant.
S. A. Marikar, for plaintiff-respondent.
August 20, 1964. Sr<r Skanda Rajati, J.—
This is an action brought by the land-lady to eject her tenant thedefendant. Premises being subject to the provisions of the RentRestriction Act, the plaintiff had to come within one of the groundsspecified in the proviso to Section 13 (1). She chose to restrict theground to only one of those specified in sub-section {c) of the proviso,viz., that the premises were reasonably required for her occupationas a residence.
But her evidence disclosed that this was really required for thepurpose of her profession or vocation, namely, teaching music. I amunable to agree with the finding of the learned Commissioner whichhe put thus : “ I do not think that the teaching of music in a privatehouse constitutes even a profession or a vocation
The evidence disclosed that she really requires premises No. 10 occupiedby the defendant in order to carry on her teaching of music. Teachingof music for profit is a c‘ vocation ” within the meaning ofSection 13 (1) proviso (c).
Mr. Marikar found himself in a difficulty, and he suggested that itwas understood that the plaintiff required the premises both for residenceand for her vocation. In that event the issue should have been to thateffect. But the only relevant issue was : “ Are the premises in suitreasonably required for the ‘ use and occupation as a residence ’ for theplaintiff ? ”
2*—B. 2545 (12/64)
S. C. 31164—C. B. Colombo, 86,784/R.B.
Appeal
from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
438
Per era v. Naganathan
Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish that thepremises in question are reasonably required for her occupation as aresidence. Therefore, I set aside the judgment and decree of the learnedCommissioner, and dismiss the plaintiff’s action with costs here andbelow.
Appeal- allowed.