107-NLR-NLR-V-51-RODRIGO-Appellant-and-PARANGU-Respondent.pdf
450
BASNAYAKE J.—Rolrigo v. Paranga
1950
Present: Basnayake J.
RODRIGO, Appellant, and PARANGU, Respondent
S.C. 119—CM. Colombo, 15,683
Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948—Section 13—Death of landlord—Right of ad-ministrator to maintain action—Civil Procedure, Code, section 472.
Tho administrator of tho ostute of a doceasod htndlord is entitled, by virtuoof section 472 of tho Civil Procedure Codo, to maintain an action under the RentRestriction Act for the purpose of ojecting a tenant of tho deceased and puttinginto possession tho doceased’s widow and children if the promises in questionaro reasonably required for their occupation.
i^PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with M. M, Kumarakulasingfiam, forplaintiff appellant.
//. W. Tambiah, with S. Sharvananda, for defendant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 2, 1950. Basnayake J,—
The plaintiff-appellant is the administrator of the estate of on* X).
Karunaratne deceased. He seeks to have the defendant-respondentejected from premises Nos. 414/1 and 414/2 in Baseline Road, Colombo.He claims that he is entitled to maintain the action qua administratoras the premises are reasonably required for the occupation of the widowand children of the deceased.
451
BASXAYAKE J.—Rodrigo v. Parangu
The learned Commissioner holds that the premises are reasonablyrequired for the occupation of the widow and children of the deceased,and that, having regard to the defendant’s requirements* the claim of thedeceased’s heirs to the occupation of the premises is entitled to prevail.But he gives judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that be is notentitled to maintain the action qua administrator.
I find myself unable to share the opinion of the learned Commissionerthat the plaintiff cannot maintain the action qua administrator. Thereis nothing in section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948,or in any other provision of that Act, that supports his decision. Section13 so far as is material reads :
“ (!) Notwithstanding anything in any other law, no action orproceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of any premises to whichthis Act applies shall be instituted in or entertained by any Court,unless the Board, on the application of the landlord, has in writingauthorised the institution of such action or proceedings:
Provided, however, that the authorisation of the Board shall not benecessary, and no application for such authorisation may be enter*tained by the Board, in any case where—
(а)rent has been in arrear for one month after it has become due; or
(б)the tenant has given notice to quit; or
(c) the premises are, in the opinion of the Court, reasonably requiredfor occupation as a residence for the landlord or any memberof the family of the landlord, or for the purposes of the trade,business, profession, vocation or employment of the landlord.”
In view of the learned Commissioner’s findings of fact, the only questionthat remains for consideration is whether the plaintiff qua administratorcan maintain the action. I am of the opinion that section 472 of theCivil Procedure Code affords sufficient authority for the plaintiff to main-tain this action. That section reads:
“ In all actions concerning property vested in a trustee, executor,or administrator when the contention is between the persons benefi-cially interested in such property and a third person, the trustee,executor, or administrator shall represent persons so interested; and itshall not ordinarily be necessary to moke them parties to the action.But the court may, if it think fit, order them, or any of them, to bemade such parties. ”
Under our law the estate of a deceased person vests1 in the adminis-trator and the plaintiff is, by virtue of the section I have quoted above,entitled to maintain the action he has brought.
I therefore allow the plaintiff’s appeal with costs and direct that decreebe entered as prayed for in the plaint.
Appeal allowed.
» Perera v. Silva, (1893) 2 C.L. Rep. 150.
Fernando r. Rosa Maris el al. (1926) 28 N.L.R. 231.
The Pvhlic Trustee v. Karunaratne, (1938) 40 N.L.R. 129.
De Silva v. Rambvk-pota, (1939) 41 N.L.R. 37 at 42.