028-NLR-NLR-V-72-R.-A.-W.-RANASINGHE-Appellant-and-K.-D.-L.-JAYATILLAKE-Respondent.pdf
126
Ranasinyhe v. Jayalillake
1969 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and Weeraniantry, J.R, A. W. BANASINGHK. Appellant, and. K. D. L. J A YAT1LLAKJG,Kosponclout
S. C. 5VijGG {[■')—D. C. Kalutara, J0S3fM.lt.Rent-controlled premises—Authorised rent—Determination by Rent Control Board—Claim based on it for refund of rent overpaid during a past period—Validity—Rent Restriction Act, as a mender l by Act ;Vo. 10 of 10G1. ss. 4. 5, 10, 10 A, '40 (5),20(13).
Soction JGA of tho Rent Restriction Act, as amended by Act Xo. 10 of 1901,providos not for a fixation of the authorised rent but for n determination of thoamount of tho authorised rent. The purpose of section IGA is not that the RentControl Hoard alters tho authorised rent from one amount to another but thatit determines what is tho authorised rent in terms of tho relevant provisions oftho Act.
II. X. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Rattaainyhe v. Jayatillakc
127
A refund of rent overpaid during a past period may be claimed by a tenanton the basis of the authorised rent as determined by tho Rent Control Board interms of section J6A. Tho Board’s determination is evidence of tho amountof the authorised rent for a past period.
When the Rent Control Board has made determination of authorised rentunder section IGA. the parties must be given authentic notice of the contentsof tho order affecting them.
-A.PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Ivalutara.
Nimal Senanayake, with Neil Dias, for tho plaintiff-appellant.
-/. IK. Subasinghe, for tiio defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. duU.
Juno 20, 100.9. H. N. G. Fkh^axdo, C.JL—Tho plaintiff instituted this action for the recovery of a sum of moneyalleged by him to havo been overpaid to his landlord tho defendant asrent for the period 1st January 19C2 to 30th September 1904. Thepremises aro situated within the limits of tho Town Council ofyintugama and tho plaintiff proved that he has during this period paida sum of Rs. 100 per month as rent together with Rs. 158 73 cents asassessment rates on the premises.
In October 1964 tho plaintiff made an application to the Rent ControlBoard of JNJatugama requesting the Board to fix the rent of the premisesin terms of section 4 of tho Rent Restriction Act ”. Notice of thisapplication was given to the landlord and an inquiry was held on 5thNovember 1901, at which however the landlord was not present. TheBoard apparently realised that-1lie plaintiff’s application was intended tobe ono for tint order under s. IGA of tho Rent Restriction Act as amendedby Act No. 10 of 1901, which provides as follows :—
10a. The board may, upon an application made in that behalfby the 1 a milord or the tenant of Iho premises, by order determinethe amount of the authorised rent of the premises. ”
It will be seen (as I had occasion to remark in tho case of William v. Sotna–'airularam1) that s. 16A provides not for a fixation of tho authorised rentbut for a determination of the amount of the authorised rent. Section16 of the principal Act originally provided that the landlord must supplythe tenant on request with a statement of tho standard rent, and theamount of any claimed permitted increase. It is clear thatthe Legislatureconsidered this provision to bo insufficient in the tenant’s interest becauseof possible inaccuracy in a statement so supplied by the landlord. Thedeficiency was supplied by the now section 16A, under which a tenant canhave tho amount of tho authorised rent moro certainly calculated and
1 (1968) 71 N. L. R. 459.
123
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C. J.—Ranasinghe v. Jayalillake
determined by the Rent Control Board. Tho tenant will thus be in a.position to assuro himself that ho does make correct payments of rent tohis landlord.
Tho Rent Control Board in this caso determined that tho ront of thepromises in question is Rs. 5S/S2 per month. Tho learned District Judgehad two roasons for not accepting tho Board’s dotormination and I shallnow considor thoso.
Tho defendant marked in evidenco as D1 tho Board’s ofifico copy of thonotico which was sont to tho defendant by tho Board after the inquiryheld on 5th November 1964. In this copy, which is signed by the Socrotaryof tho Board, tho dofondant was quito clearly informed of tho Board’sorder that tho monthly rent payablo to the landlord of tho promises isRs. 5S/S2. •' Prom tho terms of D1 tho learned District Judge has inferredthat the notice which tho Board sent to tho defendant was identicalwith Dl, and has furthor held on this footing that a notico in tho form ofD1 is not duo compliance with tho Board’s duty to send to the defendanta copy of its ordor.
Sub-soction (13) of s. 20 requires that overy order made by the Boardshall be reducod to writing and signed by tho Chairman, and furthor thata copy of tho order shall bo transmitted to each party. A very strictconstruction of this sub-soction might justify tho opinion that tho copyof an order sont to a party must bo a duplicate, and must itsolf bear thesignature of tho Chairman, and I must concede that this case has rovoaledtho need for Ront Control Boards to be advised as to the form and mannerin which tho roquiromonts of the Act must bo observed. NovortholessI am satisfied that a notice in the form Dl adequately satisfies tho objectof sub-soction (13), which is only that tho parties must have authenticnotico of tho contonts of an order affecting them. I hold therefore thattho dofondant did roeeivo in tho communication Dl what was substantiallya copy of the Board’s order.
As statod abovo, tho ordor of tho Board was mado on 5th Novombor1964, but the claim of tho plaintiff in thisaction was that he had overpaidront oacli month from 1962 until Scptcmbor 1964, in an amountropresonting the difference between Rs. 100 and tho sum of Bs. 5S/S2determined by tho Board. The learned Judgo lias however declinedto accept tho Board’s dotormination of Rs. 5S/S2 as boing the authorisedront during a period which was prior to tho dato of the ordor. Tho Judgehero purported to apply a judgmont in tho caso of Ranasinghe v. Fernando1.This caso related to premises to which paragraph (c) of section 5 (2) of thoAct applios. According to tho judgmont in that caso.it was not one inwhich tho authorised ront of tho promisos had boon fixed by referenceto tho assossmont in Novombor 1941, and thus it was ono to which para-graph (c) of sub-soction (2) of section 5 applied. Undor that, paragraph,tho standard rent is declared to be the agreed ront or olsc an amountfixed by tho Board on application to it. In that ease therefore, until
1 {1951) 53 N. L. It. 163.
II. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Ranasinghe t>. Jayatillake
129
there was a fixation by tho Board, paragraph (c) made the agreed amountthe standard rent, and tho amount fixed by the Board became tho standardront only after tho Board actually fixed it. In other words, tho Boardunder that paragraph alters what was previous^' tho amount of thestandard rent. On these grounds Gratiaen J. held that tho rent fixedby tho Board did not apply to tho premises prior to tho date of thefixation.
Tho ease is clearty distinguishable from one to which s. 16A of tho Actapplies. Tho purpose of s. IGA is not that tho Board alters the authorisedrent from one amount to a no (her, but that it determines what is theauthorised rent in terms of tho relevant provisions of the Act. In thopresent case, tho premises were during the relevant period assessed forrates by tho Town Council, and accordingly tho annual valuo of thepremises as so assessed was the criterion by roforcnco to which (in terms-of s. 5 (I) (a) etc.) the authorised rentis to be ascertained. Thcro is noallegation that the Board in determining Rs. 58/82 to bo tho authorisedrent, erred in any manner in reaching its dctcrmination. and in any evcntthe plaintiff was entitled to rely on the presumption of regularity. Itmust be assumed therefore that the Board’s determination was reachedupon duo consideration of s. 5 (1) (a) of tho Act and other provisionsrelevant to tho ascertainment of tho authorised rent.
It thus appears that the objoction that tho Board’s determination ofNovember 1964 is not evidence of tho amount of tho authorised rent for apast period, is at best purely technical. Tho provisions of tho Act rolatingto the standard rent of assessed premises and to permitted increaso of thostandard rent are such that there is littlo possibility that the authorisedrent of any premises at any timo can bo highor than tho amount whichwas tho authorised ront at any oarlier period *. On tho contrary, tho onlyapparent possibility is one quite unfavourable to a landlord, namelythat tho authorised rent of premises say in 1962 or 1963 may be lonerthan tho amount which a Rent Control Board may determine under s. 16Ain 1964.
Tho amendment of the principal Act by Act No. 10 of 1961 containsno provision which expressly indicates tho purposo of a determinationunder s. 16A by a Ront Control Board. But I noto that such adetermination is made in an ordor of tho Board (section 20 (3)), thatpartios must bo given an opportunity to bo heard, that notice of thoBoard’s ordor must be given to tho partios, and that the order is subjectto appoal to a Board of Review. In these circumstances it is fair toassunio that tho Legislature intonded that determination under s. 16A•should at least be prima facie ovidcnco of the authorised ront of premises.
If the correctness of the amount determined by tho Board is not contest od,and if no cvidenco is offered to show that the true authorised ront is'different from the amount as determined by the Board, a Court must
Fernando, C.J., has pointed out that this sentence of his judgment erroneously-states, the 'opposite of what he intended; tJ e next sentence indicates tho actual•intention.—Ed.-
130
SIRIMANE, J.—Quyn v. Ibrahim
accept and act upon tbo determination. The establishment of twostatutory tribunals, tho decisions of the second of which aro declared to bofinal and conclusive, must suroly eliminato the need for a Court to makea fresh determination of tho authorised rent of promisos in a case-whore no evidonco is offered to challongo the correctness of tho Board’s,determination.
I hold for those roasons that the plaintiff established that tho authorised,ront for tho relevant period was Rs. 58/82 per month and accordinglythat overpayments were mado as claimed in tho plaint.
Tho appoal is allowed and judgment will bo entered for tho plaintiffin a sum of Rs. 1517/G7 and for costs in both Courts.
Weebamantby, J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed_