153-NLR-NLR-V-47-THASSIM-Appellant-and-CABEEN-Respondent.pdf
440
CANEKERATNE J.—Thasaim v. Cabcen.
1946Present: Canekeratne J.
THASSIM, Appellant, and CABEEN, Respondent.
4—C. R. Colombo, 97,559.
Landlord and tenant—Monthly tenancy—Notice to quit—Length of noticenecessary.
Where the circumstances showed that a clear month’s notice oftermination of the tenancy ought to have been given—
Held, that a letter sent by the landlord asking the tenant to quitat the end of December was not sufficient notice if it was posted onNovember 30 but reached on December 1.
Fonseka v. Jayawickrema (1892) 2 C. L. Rep. 134 followed.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Colombo.
E. B. Wikramanayake, for the plaintiff, appellant.
T.Paramasothy, for the defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. wilt.
August 28, 1946. Cankkkratne J.—
This case raises the question of the length of notice to which thedefendant is entitled. It is admitted that the defendant held thesepremises, No. 134, Wilson street, Colombo, on a monthly tenancy andthat the tenancy began on the first of a month, and the landlord sent anotice to quit dated November 30, 1944 ; this reached the tenant onDecember 1, 1944.
Nanaoora v. Jctria.
441
The period of the notice to quit must correspond with the length of thetenancy ; it is clear that a monthly tenant is entitled to a month’s notice1.The notice must determine at the end of a periodic month from thecommencement of the tenancy. In a case decided in 1892 8 Withers J.came to the conclusion that notice must be given before the commence-ment of the month at the expiry of which the tenancy is to determine:he was influenced in his view by what he considered to be the prevailingcustom of the country. Parties are presumed to contract with referenceto the known usages of the place.
The contention of the defendant was that an implied term of thecontract between the plaintiff and himself was .that he should receivea clear month’s notice of termination, this being one of the usual termson which premises are let on a monthly tenancy in this district. Thatthe defendant was entitled to such a notice was also the view of theplaintiff till the close of the trial (see paragraph 2 of the plaint and hisevidence); it was unfortunate for him that his expectation that theletter would be received on the same day as it was posted was notrealised. The decision in Fonseka v. Jayawichrama {supra) applies to thecase.
In these circumstances the discussion of the question whether the ruleformulated in the case of Tiopaziu v. Buluwayo Municipality3 is part ofthe Law of Ceylon, serves no purpose.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.