023-NLR-NLR-V-67-P.-T.-H.-ABDUL-RAHUMAN-Appellant-and-M.-P.-M.-S.-ABDUL-CADER-and-another-Resp.pdf
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.P. T. H. ABDUL R AHUMAN, Appellant, and M. P. M. S. ABDULCADER and another, Respondents
8. C. 238/61—C. R. Colombo, 79616
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1961—Section 13—Action institutedthereunder—Period of notice to quit—Inapplicability of section 13 (1A) of theprincipal Act {Cap. 274).
In an action instituted on 16th May 1961 in terms of section 13 of the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1961—
Held, that section 13 (1A) of the principal Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 274), asamended by Act No. 10 of 1961, did not apply in the case of an action governedby section 13 of the Amending Act of 1961. Accordingly, three months’ noticeof termination of the tenancy was not necessary.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
C. Ranganathan, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
S. Sharvananda, with J. V. C. Nathaniel, for the Defendants-Respondents.
Cur. adv. vuU.
October 1, 1963. H. N. G. Fbbnando, J.—
In order to discuss the point arising in this appeal, it is necessary torefer to the relevant provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts in somedetail.
Under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 274), a landlordhad the right to institute an action for ejectment if (inter alia) rent hasbeen in arrears for one month after it has become due. The section con-tained no special provision regarding the need to give notice of terminationof the tenancy, and accordingly, the matter of notice continued to begoverned by the common law.
Section 13 of the Amending Act No. 10 of 1961 has the effect that anaction for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent cannot be institutedunless the rent has been in arrears for three months. The provision in thePrincipal Act (Cap. 274) was thereby superseded, but only temporarily,for the later section has operation (vide sub-section 2) only during theperiod July 20, 1960 to July 20, 1962.
The case before me is one to which the later section applies, the plainthaving been filed on 16th May, 1961. Hence the first issue, the proofof which will be on the plaintiff, raises the question whether rent has beenin arrears for 3 months before the filing of the action.
Section 6 of the Amending Act of 1961 effects an amendment of section13 of the Principal Act by inserting therein a new sub-section (1A) inthe following terms :—
“ The landlord of any premises to which this Act applies shall not
be entitled to institute any action or proceedings for the ejectment
of the tenant of such premises on the ground that the rent of such
premises has been in arrear for one month after it has become due,—
(а)if the landlord has not given the tenant three months’ notice
of the termination of the tenancy, or
(б)if the tenant has, before such date of termination of the tenancy
as is specified in the landlord’s notice of such termination,tendered to the landlord all arrears of rent. ”
The point successfully taken by the Defendant in the lower Court, as apreliminary issue, is that this new requirement of a three months’ noticeof termination applies not only when the permanent law (section 13 of thePrincipal Act) is invoked by a landlord, but also when, as in the presentcase, the landlord brings his action in terms of the temporary law (section13 of the Amending Act). Put I reach without difficulty the conclusionthat the Legislature has manifested an intention contrary to thatcontended for by the Defendant.
Let me examine first section 13 of the Principal Act, including the newsub-section (1A) added to it in 1961. The section gives the landlord aright to bring his action if the rent has been in arrear for one month. But
the new sub-section (1A) imposes an additional condition, namely thatthe landlord must have given three months’ notice of termination of thetenancy. This new requirement could have been imposed in more waysthan one:—
Sub-section (1A) could have stated that an action cannot be insti-
tuted “ upon the ground specified in paragraph (a) of sub-section
of this section ” unless there has been a three months’ noticeof termination; or
Sub-section (1A) could merely have imposed the new conditions
“ in the case of any action instituted on the ground that rent isin arrear ”,
The use of either such formula would have rendered all the provisions ofsub-section (1A) fully effective, and there was no necessity for the preciserepetition of all the words from sub-section (1), that is “on the groundthat rent has been in arrear for one month after it has become due Theonly necessity I can see for this repetition is the precautionary need toavoid the very construction for which the Defendant has here contended,namely that sub-sction (1A) applies also as part of the temporary law.
Examination of section 13 of the Amending Act makes it clear thatwhile it is in operation nothing contained in the permanent section 13 asoriginally enacted will apply to a tenancy action. There is nothing insub-sections (1),(2),(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of the permanent sectionin favour either of a tenant or of a landlord which has any relevancy to anaction to which the temporary law applies. If then the Legislature didintend that nevertheless the pro visions of the new sub-section (1 A) shouldapply under the temporary law, one would expect that intention tohave been clearly expressed. Far from that being the case, the Legis-lature has in the new sub-section (1 A) employed terms indicating thatthe sub-section will apply only where the ground for ejectment is thatthe rent has been in arrear for ONE month.
I hold that the new sub-section (1A) does not apply in the case of anaction governed by section 13 of the Amending Act of 1961, and Ianswer issue No. 6 in the affirmative.
The decree dismissing the Plaintiff’s action is set aside with costs ofappeal to the Plaintiff. The action will proceed on the other issues.
Decree set aside.