038-NLR-NLR-V-77-S.-PEDURU-Appellant-and-A.-C.-M.-THAHIR-Respondent.pdf
Pedum v. Thahir
191
1973Present: Bajaratnani, J.S. PEDURU, Appellant, and A. C. M. THAHIR, RespondentS. C. 19/72—C. R. Colombo, 1472/R.E.
Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972—“Excepted premises” prior to the Act—Lettingof only a room therein—Action. in ejectment relating to suchroom—Inapplicability of s. 47 of the Act.
Where a person took, on a small rent, only a room in certainresidential premises the annual value of which exceeded Rs. 2,000,such room does not come under the protection of section 47 of theRent Act No. 7 of 1972 if an action in ejectment relating to it wasinstituted prior to the commencement of the Act and was pendingon the date of commencement of the Act. In such a case, therefore,the proceedings cannot be deemed to have been at all times mill andvoid.
192
RAJARATNAM, J.—Pedum v. Thahir
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.A. Sivagurunathan, for the defendant-appellant.
Respondent absent and unrepresented.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 21, 1973. Rajaratnam, J.—
Mr. Advocate Sivagurunathan who appeared for the defendant-appellant in this case submitted that under s. 47 of the RentRestriction Act No. 7 of 1972 this appeal must be declared nulland void and produced a document marked * X ’ which waspurported to be a certified copy of an extract of the assessmentbook in relation to this premises. The annual value in relationto the whole premises is above Rs. 2,000. In this case the defendanttook on rent only a room in premises No. 43 on a monthly rentalof Rs. 15. In view of the decision in the case of Plate Limited v.Ceylon Theatres Limited1, 75 N. L. R. 128, the defendant couldnot have as an occupier of a part of the premises claimed theprotection of the Rent Restriction Act. To come under s. 47, thisaction must be for ejectment from residential premises exceedingthe relevant amount i.e. Rs. 2,000. Premises as defined in theAct is a building or part of a building with the land appertainingto it.
Therefore the action must be for ejectment from a residentialbuilding or part of a building etc. the annual value of whichexceeds Rs. 2,000. It is not possible to say what was the annualvalue of the part which the defendant occupied as there wasno separate assessment but it does not follow therefore that theannual value of the whole building etc. should attach to the roomthe defendant occupied and I hold that the defendant was notin occupation of a part of a building the annual value of whichexceeds the relevant amount, i.e. Rs. 2,000. The room did notbear an annual value exceeding Rs. 2,000 nor did it come underthe protection of the Rent Restriction Act.
I dismiss the appeal without costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1 (1971) 75 N. L. B. 128.