079-NLR-NLR-V-56-PERERA-SONSLTD-Appellant-and-MRS.-F.-PATHE-Respondent.pdf
Vrreru <C- Softs. I Ad. f. Pate
33 t
1955Preset)l:Sansoni J.
PKRKRA & SONS, 1/N>., Appellant, and MRS. 1'. PATH, Respnndml>S ('. -r>2—('. It. Colombo, 4G,4SS
Unit 10,.Driotion Art. Xn. I’!I nj t!l /,‘ —Snrtion 1H (/) (d)—-A*uisnnr.c—Xntiirr of res-ponsibility of tenant—“ Adjoining ” occupiers—Must to ml foul himself ./ireevidence ?
Defendant., a limited liability Company carrying on the busmens of bakers-was a tenant, of certain rented premises. One of the rented rooms was beingused ns a rest room by the Company's workmen. There was evidence that theoccupants of the room used to urinate in and pollute the drains on both sides ofthe road just, outside that room. A neighbouring occupier who lived oppositethe premises repeatedly complained about the objectionable behaviour of theoccupants of the room, but the dofendant permitted the nuisance to continue.
Held, that the defendant was guilty of conduct which was a nuisance toadjoining occupiers within the meaning of soction 13 (1) (d) of the Kent Res-triction Act and was therefore liable to be ejected from the premises.
A
XXPPRAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo. 11
11. If. Jayeirnrdcne, Q.C., with P. Ranaslnghc, for the defendant
appellant.
– •
K. A. (.!. tie Silva, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
SANS0N1 J.—Partra <&t Sunn, Ltd. u. Pate
uac
February 15, 1955. Sansoni J.—
In this action the landlord relying on section 13 (1) (d) of the RentRestriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, has sued to eject a tenant from therented premises on the ground that the tenant lias been guilty of conductwhich is a nuisance to the landlord and other adjoining occupiers. Thetenant is a limited liability Company carrying on the business of bakers.Its main bakery, to which are attached lavatories and bathrooms, isabout 50 yards away from the rented premises. The evidence has con-clusively proved that one of the rented rooms has for a long time priorto this action been used as a rest room by the Company’s workmen.Although the Managing Director denied this, ho admitted that his work-men change in that room and leave their clothes there before they goto work. But the evidence of independent witnesses, whom the learnedCommissioner has believed, has established much more. It lias provedthat the room in question was being habitually occupied at all times oftiic day and night even for the purpose of sleeping.
The particular nuisance complained of is that the occupants of the roomused to urinate in and pollute the drains on both sides of tho road justoutside thut room. A neighbouring occupier, Mr. Ebert, who livesopposite these premises repeatedly complained to tho Police, to thedefendant, and to the Municipal authorities about tho objectionablebehaviour of the Occupants of the room, but the defendant permittedthe nuisance to continue. The learned Commissioner held in favourof the lundlord and in this appeal it was argued that the case docs not fallwithin section 13 (I) (d) because (1) the tenant lias not been guilty ofthe conduct complained of and the Act does not provide that the tenantmay be held responsible for the conduct of other persons who use thepremises.; (2) the conduct must be conduct on the rented premises andnot outside them ; (3) Mr. Ebert was not an " adjoining occupier ” ; (4)the plaintiff Jias not given evidence that she considered the conductof those persons a nuisance. 1 shall consider these submissions in theabove order. (I)
(I) Although the Company which is tin* tenant of the premises hasnot directly committed this nuisance, I am satisfied that it has indirectlycommitted it and is therefore penalised hy the Act, for it must lie holdliable for tin*, nuisance committed by thoso who occupied the room inquestion. The Managing Director was repeatedly informed that theoccupants of the room were beiiaving in an objectionable manner, und thiswas obviously due to the absence of lavatory accommodation ; if he wasunable to provide such accommodation or otherwise abate the nuisance,lu* should not have permitted the room to be used as a rest room. L donot think this is a matter which turns on the liability of a master fortin* acts of bis servants but rather oil the responsibility of an oecupii-r<>t premises to see that a nuisance is not created by anybody who conicson those premises with his permission. I think such a liability existsbecause the nuisance may be said to have been committed under bisimplied authority. The following passage in " The Rents Act ill SouthAfrica’' (2nd Edition) p. 10G by Rose! low and Dicinotil seems relevant;
xtn
SANSON! J.-—Perera cfcr Sons, Ltd. v. Pate
“ The onus is cm tho lessor to satisfy the Court that the lessee is responsiblefor tho nuisance. So, for example, an ejectment order was refused ina ease where a nuisance in the form of brawling and drinking was alleged,and it appeared that chance, intruders might be responsible for thenuisance
(2) The sub-section docs not require that the nuisance should exist,on the rented promises and I am not prepared to limit it in the waysuggested. Mr. Megarry in “ The Rent Acts'” (7th Edition) p. 245cites a ease where an order was made on account of a married tenant'sacts of undue familiarity with the landlord’s adolescent daughter wholived in a flat in the same house, even though those acts took placenot in the house but in an alley some distance away ; for on a claimbased on annoyance (which is an additional ground in the English Statute)to adjoining occupiers, “ what arises from their being adjoiningmay properly bo considered in the light of an event which took placeoutside the premises ”.
(.'{) On page 246 Mr. Megarry refers to a case where the word " adjoin-ing ” seems to have been construed as meaning “ contiguous ” but hocomments : “ This seems too strict a construction, for otio moaningof the word is 1 neighbouring ’ and all that the context seems to requireis that the promises of the adjoining occupiers should be near enoughto be affected bv the tenant’s conduct on the demised premises”. Myown view of the meaning of the word accords with this comment.
There is no question that the plaintiff herself is an adjoiningoccupier even in the most limited sense of the term and that the plaintalleges a nuisance to her as well. I do not think it was necessary thatevidence should have been given by the plaintiff herself that sheconsidered the conduct complained of a nuisance. Upon proof of conductcapablo of having this effect the Court is entitled to infer that it hadthat effect even if there is no positivo evidence that it did. The Courtis entitled to presume that the adjoining occupiers are reasonable peopleto whom the conduct iti question would be a nuisance. Sec FrederickPlatts Co., Ltd. v. Grifjor *.
I woidd therefore dismiss this appeal with costs in both Courts.
Appeal dismissed.
' (1050) GO T. L. R. S50.