065-NLR-NLR-V-73-T.-N.-RAMZAN-Appellant-and-Mrs.-G.-SARDAR-Respondent.pdf
3 SO
SAMKR.WVIC'K RAJIK, .T.—Ramzan r. Sttnhtr
1970Present : Sameravickrame, J.
T.X. HA.MZAX, Appellant, r/W Mrs. C. SARDAR. Respondent
s. c. nsios—c. /?. Colombo, sooon’it.E.Rint Restriction Act, as inh'iaM h>j Act So. 10 oj 100t—Section }■7 (/-l)—Satire to
f/liit—Arrears r,f n at—Quantum that shonll he t< t.-fi rr.f -Rent Restriction
(Amrnihnrnt) Act, So. fin/ f'.UiO- SrOfir of s. f (f) (a). it a. I irith s. / ' | ,.f the
principal Act.
Section 13 (IA) <.f ih«> Rent lies! riel inn Aft, as aim-ndcd l>y Ait Xn. 10 ,,f1001, reads as follows —
** Tlie landlord of any promises to which this Act applies >hn]l not ho emit ledto institute any action or proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of suchpromises on tho ground t hat the. rent of such premises has hen in nrrear for onemonth after it. has hceoine due,—
(<■/) if tho landlord has not- given the- tenant three months’ nntico of thetermination of tho tanancy, or
{b) if tho tenant has, heforo such dato of termination of tho tenancy as isspecified in tho landlord’s notice of stieh termination, tendered to thelandlord all arrears of rent. ”
Jfclrl, that what tho provision in subsection (b) requires is that, tho tenant,should fonder all arrears of rent ns at the date of tho notice.
IJehl further, that the rnio that actions pritna facie void under section 4 (1) («)of tho Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act Xo. 12 of 1006 may bo maintainedif they arc based on grounds set out in section 12A of tho principal Act shouldnot bo extended to actions which would have failed under tho law that wasactually in operation on the dato when the action was filed.
A.PPEAL from a judgment, of tho Court of Requests, Colombo.A. C. Nadurajvh, for the plaintiff-appellant.
A. Sivagnrunathan, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. ath>. v-ult.
August 24, 1970. Samehavickbame, J.—
In this case the learned Commissioner of Requests had to considerthe interpretation to be placed on Section 13 (1A) of the Rent RestrictionAct introduced by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act-, Xo. 10 of1961. The provision is as follows :—
• " The landlord of any premises to which this Act applies shall notbe entitled to institute any action or proceedings for the ejectment
SAilERAWICKRAME, J.—Ramzan r. Sardar
3S1
of the tenant of such premises on the ground that the rent of suchpremises has been in arrear for one month after it lias become due,—
if the landlord has not given the tenant three months’ notice
of the termination of the tenancy, or
if the tenant has, before such date of termination of the
tenancy as is specified in the landlord's notice of suchtermination, tendered to the landlord all arrears of rent. ”
A possible view is that in terms of the provision in subsection (6)quoted above, all arrears of rent as at the date of termination of thetenancy had to be tendered by the tenant. In Bardeen v. de Silva 1Tatnbiali, J. rejected this interpretation and said, "Ho conceded thatin order to succeed in his contention the words ‘up to the date of thetermination of notice ’ should be read into the statute after tlie words‘ tendered to the landlord all arrears of rent ’ in section 13 (I A) (t) of theRent Restriction Act, as amended by Act No. 10 of 1901. I cannotagree. It is a cardinal rule of construction that words should not beread into a statute unless clear reason for it is to be found within thefour corners of the statute itself (vide Cickers v. Evans (1910) L.J.K.B.,p. 955). The Courts cannot arrogate to themselves the functions of theLegislature and should confine themselves to the task of interpretation.”With respect, I agree with this dictum.
As the tenant, has to tender the arrears " before such date of termination ”it should be open to him to do so even on the day after be receives notice.If this be correct, arrears would not include, arrears arising during theperiod of the three months’ of notice. I am, therefore, of the view thatwhat the provision in subsection (ft) requires is that the tenant shouldtender all arrears of rent as at the date of the notice.
'flic question arisos whether a tenant has to tender all rent that hasbecome due before the date of the notice, or only rent that had becomedue and had been in arrears for one month thereafter. As the wordsused in t lie provision are "all arrears of rent” I am of opinion thathe has to tender all rent that had become due before tho date of the noticeand was therefore in arrear at that date. Tt is, however, unnecessaryto decide this question in the present ease. Notice of termination oftenancy was given on I44h July, 1904, and on that date onl}- rents forthe months of May and June were due hut on 9th September, 196-4,before the date of the termination of the tenancy specified in the notice,tins defendant-tenant had paid the rents for May, June and July.
I am therefore of the view that upon an application of the provisions
of s.. 13 (I A) tho plaintiff could not have maintained this action.
4
At the time this action came to trial the Rent Restriction (Amendment)Act,; No. 12 of 1906, had come into force and a different provision hadbornmo applicable. 1 am however of the view that tho rule adopted* {1964) 66 A*. L. R. Sir at S4S.
3S- TJIAMOTHERAM, J. -Vo/m/mi r. Sub-lncpce/or of Police> .1fount Jjavinin
by this Courtthat actions, pritna facie, void under s. 4 (l) (a) of Act No. 12of lOGIj, inay bo maintained if they arc based on grounds sot out in -s.12A, should not bo extended to actions which would have failed underthe law that was actually in operation on the date that tho action wasfiled. I am therefore, of the view that the learned Commissioner wascorrect in holding that the plaintiff cannot avail himself of the amendingAct No. 12 of 19G6 and maintain the action if in fact he was not entitledto institute the action at the timo the action was so instituted. Theappeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.