W. A. FONSEKA, Appellant, and D. W. WANIGASEKERA, Respondent

116-NLR-NLR-V-65-W.-A.-FONSEKA-Appellant-and-D.-W.-WANIGASEKERA-Respondent.pdf


552
SRI SBLAjSTDA. RAJAH, J.—JPonseko v, Wanigaselcera
1963Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.
W. A. PCMSE&A, AppeR&at, md D. W. WANHMGSKRRA,
-Respondent –
& G. 74(62—0. R. Colombo, 81280
Rent Restriction Act—Inapplicability to property of Grown.
The Beat Resbriobion Acb does nob apply to premises belonging bo the Crown.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Bequests, Colombo.
Neville Wijeratne, for defendant-appellant.
R. Maniklcavasagar, for plaintiff-respondent.
October 22,1963. Sbi Skantda Rajah, J.—
Mr. Wijeratne for the appellant submits that the learned Commis-sioner’s finding that this is Crown land and therefore the Rent RestrictionAct does not apply is wrong. On the other hand, Mr. Manihkavasagarfor the plain tiff-respondent relies on the case of Clarice v. Downes, andClarice v. Mawby a decision of the House of Lords, for supporting theCommissioner’s finding.
It would appear that in this case the Crown is the owner of the premisesin question even at this time. The plaintiff was a tenant of the Crown,but he let the premises to the defendant with the permission of theCommissioner of .National Housing. In the case relied upon byMr. Manikkavasagar, the Crown had even parted with the title whenthe plaintiff filed action against the tenants and still it was held thatthe Rent Restriction Act did not apply.' The present case is a stillstronger one than the House of Lords case. Therefore, I would followthat decision and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1 145 Law Times Reports 20.