024-NLR-NLR-V-54-RAN-APPU-Petitioner-and-PELIS-APPUHAMY-Respondent.pdf
120
GUNASEKIARA J.—Ran Appu v. Pelis Appuhamy
1952Present: Gunasekara J.
RAN APPU, Petitioner, and PEDIS APPUHAMY, Respondent
S. C. 280—Application for transfer of G. B. Gampola 10,147 to theDistrict Court of Kandy
Court of Requests—Action instituted therein—Transfer of ease to District Court—Circumstances when it may be permitted—Courts Ordinance, s. 79.
An action instituted in a Court of Requests may be transferred to the DistrictCourt under the provisions of section 79 of the Courts Ordinance if the dis-advantage to the plaintiff of the transfer is outweighed by the advantage ofhaving the matters involved in the plaint and in the defence or claim inreconvention decided at one and the same time in the District Court.
A.PPLICATION under section 79 of the Courts Ordinance.
P.Somatilakam, for the defendant petitioner.Ivor Misso, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
September 30, 1952. Gtjnasekara J.—
The plaintiff, alleging that the defendant was an over-holding tenantof certain premises that he had let to him, instituted this action in theCourt of Requests of Gampola on the 4th March for the recovery of arrearsof rent and damages and for ejectment of the defendant. The defendantin his answer filed on the 6th May denied the averments in the plaint andprayed that the plaintiff’s action be dismissed. He claimed in recon-vention a sum of Rs. 2,500 as compensation for certain improvementswhich he averred that he had made to the property in pursuance of anagreement that he had entered into with the plaintiff 14 years ago, andhe prayed that he be “ allowed to retain possession ” of the propertyuntil he should be paid such compensation. He has now applied for anorder under- section 79 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6) transferring theaction from the Court of Requests of Gampola to the District Court ofKandy holden at Gampola. It seems to me that, as in the case ofJinasena v. Moosajee1, “the disadvantage to the plaintiff of a transferis outweighed by the advantage of having the questions of the allegedtenancy, of the right to compensation and to the jus retentionis decidedat one and the same time I therefore allow the application.
Applicafoon, allowed.
1 (1938) 47 N. L. R. 142.