069-NLR-NLR-V-54-S.-P.-VEERAVAGEE-PILLAI-et-al-Appellant-and-A.M.NABISSA-UMMA-Respondent.pdf
280
Veeravagee PiUai v. jStabissa Zimina,
1953..Present : Pulle J.
S. P. VEERAVAGEE PIL.LAI et al., Appellants, and, A. M. NABISSA•UMMA, Respondent
S. C. 218—C.R. Colombo, 31,183
Jient Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948—Landlord not owner of premises—His rights, under Section 13 (1) (c)—Section 26—Meaning of term “ landlord
The absence of a jus in. re in a plaintiff is not a bar to the enforcement of hisrights as a “ landlord ” as defined in the Rent Restriction Act.
Because under certain circumstances a tenant under a written contract oftenancy is deemed by Section 26 of the Rent Restriction Act to be a landlordit does not follow that a tenant who is proved to have let the premises to asub-tenant cannot assert his rights as a landlord under the Act in the absenceof a -written contract of tenancy. .
I^lPPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
W. Tambiah, -with N. C. J. Rustomjee, for the plaintiffs appellants.
B. WikramanayaJce, Q.C., with E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, for
the defendant respondent.
Cur. adv. milt.
PTJXLE J.—Veeravagee v. Nabissa Umma
281
January 9, 1953. Puma J.—
The plaintiffs who are the appellants sought to eject the defendantwho was their tenant from premises No. 84, 3rd Cross Street, Pettah,on the ground that they were reasonably required for the purposes of"their business within the meaning of section 13 £1) (c) of the Rent Restric-tion Act, No. 29 of 1948. The learned Commissioner by his judgmentdated 30th May, 1951, found in plaintiffs’ favour on this point but feltconstrained to dismiss the action on the authority of Harmed v. Ana-malay1 because the plaintiffs did not have a jus in re at the time materialto the contract of tenancy. The Commissioner has found that at thetime the plaintiffs became the tenants under the owner the defendant wasalready a tenant under that owner. In appeal the ground on which the-action was dismissed could not be sustained in view of the decision deli-vered on 4th July, 1951, by a majority of a Bench of three Judges inDe Alwis v. Perera 2 that the absence of a, jus in re in a plaintiff is not a barto the enforcement of his rights as a “ landlord ” as defined in the Act.
Learned Counsel for the defendant, relying on the provisions of section26 of the Act, urged that the plaintiffs could not maintain the action,as they were neither the owners of the premises nor tenants under a writtencontract of tenancy and that they could not, therefore, be deemed to be-landlords. In view of the obscurity of this section I laid the case bypending an authoritative pronouncement on the section by the Benchbefore whom the appeal in S. C. No. 36/C. R. Colombo Case No. 1550,.Supreme Court Minutes of 5th January, 1953, was listed for argument.This Bench did not find-it necessary to interpret section 26 and I have,as best I can, to decide whether upon any view of this difficult section-the argument can prevail.
Now it is common ground that the defendant did not at any timeoccupy or use the premises herself but had sub-let them to her brother-in-law. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiffs come within thepreamble of section 26 which reads,
“ In any case where the rent of any premises is collected, from the-person in actual occupation thereof, by a person who is neither theowner of the premises nor the tenant thereof under a written contractof tenancy executed in his favour ”
Apart from the foregoing I do not see any reason for denying to a plaintiffwho is admitted, as in the present case, to be a landlord the rights reservedto him under the Act. Because under certain circumstances a tenant-under a written contract of tenancy is deemed by section 26 to be a land-lord it does not follow that a tenant who is proved to have let the premises-to a sub-tenant cannot assert his rights as a landlord under the Act in the-absence of a written contract of tenancy.
In my opinion the appeal succeeds. The decree appealed from is setaside with costs both here and below and judgment will be entered forthe plaintiffs against the defendant for possession and for such sums as.may be found due on account of rent or damages or both.
Appeal allowed.
(1951) 52 N. L. R. 433.
(1946) 47 N. L. R. 558.