054-NLR-NLR-V-70-S.-A.-JAMALDEEN-Appellant-and-A.-MANAFF-Respondent.pdf
236
SIRIMANE, J.—«/amaldeen v. Mannff
Present : Sirimane, J.S. A. JAMALDEEN, Appellant, and A. MANAFF, Respondent8. C. 77167—C. R. Kandy, 19033Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of I960—Sections 2 and 4—Scope ojretrospective effect of section 4 (/)—Sub-letting—Rent Restriction Act, s. 12 A (1) (b)-
The retrospective operation of the provisions of section 4 (1) of the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966, is not applicable to a pendingaction in which a landlord claims the right to eject his tenant on the groundof sub-letting.
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Kandy.
P. Somatillekam, with P. Edusuriya, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
J. Fernando, for the Defendant-Respondent.
October 28, 19G7. Sirimane, J.—This was an action for ejectment filed by the plaintiff on 27.7.65on the grounds :—
That the premises were reasonably required by him for his
occupation, and
That the defendant had sub-let these premises.
It was admitted that the Rent Restriction Act applied to these premisesand that the rental value of the premises was under Rs. 100/— per month.Answer was filed by the defendant on 3.9.66. Between these dates(i. e., on 10.5.66) the Amending Act 12 of 1966 was passed. The effectof that Act is. to further restrict a landlord’s right to file an action forejectment, where the rental value of the premises is under Rs. 100/-per month. But Section 12a (1) (introduced by Section 2 of the AmendingAct) sets out those instances in which the landlord may still file an actionfor ejectment even where the rental value is under Rs. 100/— per month.Section 12a (1) (b) empowers the landlord to sue for ejectment when thepremises have been sub-let by the tenant.
By Section 4 the provisions of this Act were made retrospective asfrom 20th July, 1962.
On the date that the Amending Act was passed, there would have beenmany actions pending in the Courts filed after 20.7.62 for ejectment ongrounds not permitted under Section 12a (1) so that, in order to giveeffect to its retrospective operation, it was necessary that such pendingactions should be declared null and void : Section 4 (1) provides thataccordingly an action instituted on or after 20.7.62 and pending at thetime the Amending Act came into force should be deemed to have beennull and void.
In my opinion the provisions of this Section are applicable to pendingactions for ejectment (where the rental value of the premises is underRs. 100/- per month) on grounds other than those set out inSection 12a (1).
SAMERA WICKHAM K, J.—Seyed Mohamed v. Afeera Pillai
237
The learned Commissioner has dismissed the plaintiff’s action, andmerely stated that he holds that the action pending before him is nulland void by virtue of the Amending Act without specifying any reasonwhy he had reached that conclusion. I am of the view that this was anaction which the plaintiff, the landlord, could have filed even after theAmending Act came into operation retrospectively, as he claimed theright to eject the defendant on the ground of sub-letting as well. Section4 (1)a therefore does not render this action null and void.
I set aside the decree dismissing the plaintiff’s action and send thecase back for trial by the learned Commissioner.
It was submitted by counsel for the defendant that the pleadings arenot clear as it has been stated in the plaint that notice to quit was givento the defendant for the reason that the premises were reasonably requiredby the plaintiff and that he had sub-let the premises. The plaintiffshould be given an opportunity of amending the plaint if he so desires.He is entitled to the costs of this appeal. ■
Decree set aside