035-NLR-NLR-V-54-PEIRIS-Appellant-and-PARAMSAMY-Respondent.pdf
SWAN" J.—Peiria v. Poro/mecmly
166
1952Present : Swan J.
PEIRIS, Appellant, and PARAMSAMY, Respondent8. C. 191—G. R. Colombo, 36,884
Peru Restriction Act—Order far ejectment—Power of Appeal Court to order suspension.
When an appeal preferred by the tenant against a decree for ejectmentis dismissed, the Appeal Court has power to order suspension of the writ ofejectment for a short period.
A.
aaPPEAI from a judgment of tiie Court of Requests, Colombo.
N. K. Ghoksy, Q.G., with V. 8. A, Pullenayagam, for the defendantappellant.
V. Per era, Q.G., with T. Somasunderam, for the plaintiff respondent.
– Cur. adv. vult.
October 27, 1952. Swan J.—
Mr. Choksy appearing for the appellant said that he could not canvassthe learned Commissioner’s findings of fact or dispute the correctness ofhis judgment. He, however, applies to have execution of the writ ofejectment stayed for a period of six months, i.e., till 31.3.1953.
(1924) 27 N. Xj. R. 97 at 98.
(1919) 7 C. W. R. 95.
166
Baby Nona,' v. Arthur Silva
Mr. H. V. Perera on behalf of the respondent submits that if the appealis to be dismissed the consequences of the dismissal must automaticallyfollow—in other words he contends that I have no power to suspendexecution of the writ of ejectment.
Mr. Choksy in asking for time on behalf of his client has referred me tothe case of Wijesinghe v. Gandappa1 where my brother Gratiaen orderedsuspension of the writ of ejeetment for a short period. Mr. Pererapointed out that in that case the landlord was unsuccessful in the lowerCourt and that it was only meet, right and just that this Court in reversingthe judgment of the lower Court should take into consideration the hard-ship to the tenant by immediate ejectment. But the ease upon whichmy learned brother acted {Wheeler v. Evans2) was a matter where theCourt of Appeal upheld an order in favour of the landlord.
In my opinion the powers of this Court extend to the granting of timeto a tenant when it affirms a decree in ejectment. In this case thelearned Commissi oner did not consider the obvious hardship that thetenant would suffer if writ of ejectment had to be executed forthwith.
In dismissing the appeal I direct that if the defendant-appellant shoulddeposit in Court whatever is already payable under the decree andall further damages up to 31.12.52 on or before 15.11.52 writ ofejectment will not be executed till 31.12.52. In case of default theusual consequences will follow.
The plaintiff-respondent-will be entitled to the costs of appeal.
Appeal dismissed.