116-NLR-NLR-V-51-PERERA-Appellant-and-JANZ-Respondent.pdf
NAGAWNGAM J.—Ptrera v. Jans:
479
1949Present: Nagaliogam J.
PERERA, Appellant, and JANSZ, Respondent
S. C. 65—C. R. Colombo, 14,637
Landlord and- tenant—Notice, to quit—/ncorrett assessment number assigned topremise*—Premises otherwise accurately described— Validity of notice.
A notioe to quit given by a landlord to his tenant referred to tho promises inquestion by an incorrect assessment number. The tenant, however, couldhave had no misgiving as regards the particular promises which he waa askedto quit.
Held, that, in the circumstances, tho maxim falsa demonstratio non nocelapplied and that the notice to quit was valid.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo.
H. W. Jayetvardene, for defendant appellant.
E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with if. if. Kumarakulasinghom, forplaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 6, 1949. Nagaunoam J.~~
This is a tenant’s appeal against a judgment directing his eviotionfrom the premises occupied by him. Two points have been urged onthis appeal, firstly, that the notice served on the tenant is insufficient
4 SO
NAGAI.INGAM J—Eerera v. Jams
in law to terminate his tenancy and, secondly, that having regard tothe provisions of the Kent Restriction Act it cannot be said that thepremises are reasonably required by the landlord for the purpose of histrade or business.
The first point taken is based on the incorrect assessment numberassigned to the premises by the plaintiff. The correct assessment numberof the portion of the premises occupied by the defendant is admittedly127, Galle Road. In the notice, however, the title is set out as premisesNo, 127/1, Galle Road, Wellawatte. There is evidence which shows that,prior to 1948,127/1 was the number assigned to a part of the rear portionof the building, the front portion of which was occupied by the defendant,but that in 1927 that number was removed from the assessment registersas the portion to which that number was assigned was included in theadjoining premises No. 135 and treated as part of those premises. Atthe date, therefore, when notice was served on tho defendant terminatinghis tenancy, there was in fact no premises bearing assessment No. 127/1,Galle Hoad, Wellawatte. In fact the defendant had been writton aletter by the landlord in which the correct nurabor was quoted, namely,127, Galle Road. Although in the notice to quit, DI, the incorrectassessment number had been quoted, the contents, however, did notrefer specifically to the premises No. 127/1, but requirod the defendant4 4 to quit and deliver over peaceful possession of the premises now occupiedby you5’. The tenant, therefore, could have had no misgiving as regardsthe particular premises which he was asked to quit. This is a casewhere the maxim, falsa demonstralio non nocet would apply. It hasnot been suggested that the tenant was in any way misled orinconvenienced as a result of the incorrect number quoted by the plaintiff'sproctor in his notice.
A similar question appears to have arisen under the English l^awwhere premises known as “ Bricklayer’s Arms ” were incorrectly referredto as “ Waterman’s Arms,” and the situation was set out incorrectly asin the parish of D instead of in the parish of H. It is true, however,that the premises were otherwise fully and accurately described. It washeld that the notice was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. See Doe. d.Armstrong v. Wilkinson *.
[His Lordship then upheld the finding of the Commissioner that thepremises were reasonably required by the landlord for the purpose ofhis trade or business, and dismia**! appeal with coste.j 1
1 [1840) 12 A. «fr E. 743.
Appeal dismissed.