the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any timeafter the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three,assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part ofthe dwelling-house, the remainder being already sub-let.”
The words “ without the consent of the landlord ” have been construedto cover a case of implied consent. Acceptance of rent without objectionfor four and half months after knowledge of the sub-letting was held toamount to implied consent. Our enactment does not admit of sucha construction. It is not necessary that, where the landlord becomesaware of the contravention of section 9, he must elect whether or notto treat the contract of tenancy as terminated. The moment there is acontravention of section 9 (1) his right to bring an action comes intoexistence and there is nothing in the enactment which fetters the exerciseof that right thereafter.
1 (1954) 55 N. L. R. 517.
8 (1952) 2 All E. R. 102 at 104, 105.
BASNAYAKK, C.J.—The Chettinad Corporation. Ltd. v. Carriage
Now in regard to the claim in reconvention it is submitted thatpremises No. 273/2 which is the house which was let to the 1st defendantin 1948 was a twin cottage. It was assessed in November 1948 at anannual value of Bs. 850/-. There was another tenement adjoiningNo. 273 which was for the purpose of assessment numbered as No. 275.In 1951, under the powers given to the local authority a consolidationof the two premises was made for the purpose of assessing the rates, andpremises No. 273/2 and 275 were consolidated and assessed together atthe annual value of Rs. 425/-. It is contended on behalf of the defendantthat premises No. 273/2 thereafter ceased to bear the annual value ofUs. 850/-. With that contention we are unable to agree. • Section5 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act provides that “in the case of anypremises the annual value of which was or is assessed for the purposesof any rates levied by any local authority under any written law, thestandard rent of the premises means the amount of the annual value ofsuch premises as specified in the assessment in force under such writtenlaw during the month of November 1941 or if the assessment of theannual value of such premises is made for the first time afer that month,the amount of such annual value as specified in such first assessment.”Whatever may have been the result of the consolidated assessment andthe alteration of the number of the premises, the annual value of thepremises for the purposes of the Rent Restriction Act remained at Rs. 850/-as the annual value of the premises in question was fixed at that figurewhen the assessment was made for the first time in 1948. We are ofopinion that the learned Commissioner of Requests is wrong in holdingthat there had been a payment by the defendant to the plaintiff inexcess of the authorised rent of the premises. We accordingly setaside the judgment of the learned Commissioner of Requests dismissingthe plaintiff’s action and holding that he should pay to the 1st defendant .a sum Rs. 300/-.
In view of our findings on the question of law the plaintiff is entitled tojudgment for the ejectment of the defendant as prayed for in the plaint,and we accordingly direct that the 1st and 2nd defendants and all personsholding under them be ejected from premises No. 273/2 described inthe plaint as No. 56, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. We also direct that the1st defendant be ordered to pay the authorised rent of the premises tothe plaintiff until he is ejected and the plaintiff is placed and quieted inpossession thereof. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the trial andof this appeal.
H. N. G. Feenando, J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.