W. A. M. WELEGODA, Appellant, and M. A. JOSEPH, Respondent

101-NLR-NLR-V-74-W.-A.-M.-WELEGODA-Appellant-and-M.-A.-JOSEPH-Respondent.pdf


SAlfERAWICKRAME J”.—Indrawathie Kumarihamy v. Purijjala
431
1970Present: Thamotheram, J.
W.A. M. WELEGODA, Appellant, a,id M. A. JOSEPH, RespondentS. G. 173167—C. R. Colombo, 935S0
Appeal—Tenancy action—Jurisdiction—Fresh evidence as to whether the premises inquestion are governed by the Bent Restriction Act—Admissibility.
Where, in an action brought by a landlord to eject hia tenant, the main iaauoia whether tho premises in question are governed by tho Rent Restriction Act,fresh evidence relating to that issue may bo led at tho stago of appeal inasmuchas such ovidence relates to a question of jurisdiction.
« (1958) 60 N. L. R. 355.
'{1957) 59 N.L.R. 501
432
THAMOTHERAM, J.—Welegoda v. Joseph
Ap
PEAL, from a judgment of tho Court of Requests, Colombo.
P.Somatilakam, for tho plaintiff-appellant.
A. SivagurunalTian, for the defendant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vuli.
Judo 28, 1970.Thamotheram, J.—
Tho plaintiff-appellant instituted an action in the Court of Requests,Colombo, seeking to eject tho defendant-respondent from premises No. 66Pamunuwila, Kelaniya.
Tho plaint was filed on 21.5.66. Many issues were raised but evidencewas led mainly on the issue as to whether the premises in question werogoverned by the Rent Restriction Act at the relevant time.
The defendant-respondent who raised this issue led in evidence thenotification appearing in Government Gazette No. 10,104 ofOctober 13th, 1950 which declared the Ivelaniya Village area in theColombo District as an area to which the Rent Restriction Act applied.The plaintiff-appellant accepted this evidence but sought to establishthat the premises in question were excepted premises within the meaningof tho Rent Restriction Act. The learned Judge held against theplaintiff.
At the hearing of this appeal Mr. Somatilakam, counsel for the appel-lant, brought to my notice the existence of three Gazette notifications andcontended that the Rent Restriction Act did not apply to the premises inquestion at the relevant time. By notification in the Government GazetteNo. 5,091 of 2.10.1S91, the village Pamunuwila was included in Kelaniyasub-division. By a notification in the Government Gazette Extraordinaryof 8.11.63 the new village of Biyagama was constituted. The samenotification revoked with effect from 1.7.64 the declaration dated24.9.1S91 and published in Government Gazette No. 5,091 relating to theconstitution of Kelaniya village. The evidence in the present case isthat Pamunuwila is within.the village area of Bijfagama. By notifica-tion of Ceylon Government Gazette of 15.9.67 tho Rent Restriction Actwas declared to be in operation in the area within the administrativelimits of Bijagama Villago Council.
It will be seen therefore that Mr. Somatilakam’s submission is one ofsubstance which has to be looked into very carefully. I permitted himto refer to this new material as it related to the question of jurisdiction.The effect of the Rent Restriction Act is not to afford a statutory defenceto a party but limit the jurisdiction of the Court—Vide Goddard L.J.iu Davies v. Warioick 1 and Keunenmii, J., in Ma roof v. Lcaff -.
I order a new trial on the ground of the discovery of fresh materialwhich relates to the fundamental issue as to whether the Rent RestrictionAct applied or not at the relevant time. I make no order as to costs.
Case sent bark for a new trial.
* (1944) 46 N. L. B. 25.
1 (19Pi) 1 K■ B. at 336.