I have considered the 2 grounds that were urged by learned Counselfor^the petitioner. As regards the 1st ground that the Commissioner hasfailed to specify the number of residing units that should be constructed;l note that the Commissioner’s order is that residing units should beconstructed according to the plan that was submitted. The plan wasproduced in evidence marked P7 and was available to the Petitioner.(Page 14 of the proceedings of 13.10.86). According to the evidence theplan was for 3 residing units. In these circumstances I do not see any meritin the submission of the learned Counsel.
The second ground is with regard to the reasonableness of thecompensation that had been ordered. It is conceded the authorised rentof the premises is Rs. 40/- per month. On that basis the compensationthat has been ordered exceeds 20 years of the authorised rent. It is to benoted that Section 18(A) (2) (b) (ii) has laid down a minimum of thecompensation to be ordered. The minimum is 3 years authorised rent ofthe premises. Therefore in my view the reasonableness of thecompensation ordered should be considered in relation to the minimumspecified by law. in this case I note that the compensation ordered isabout 7 times the minimum specified by law. Therefore, basically, it couldnever be considered as being unreasonable.
Mr. Gunatilake submitted that reasonableness should be consideredin relation to the cost of the petitionerto secure alternative accommodation.In this regard I have to note that the petitioner has not given evidence asto what it would cost him to secure alternative accommodation. Thepetitioner has merely claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 100,000/-without stating the basis upon which that figure was determined. Sincethe petitioner did not adduce any evidence as to what it would cost himto secure alternative accomodation the Commissioner cannot be faultedfor not considering that aspect.
It is also to be borne in mind that the other two tenants occupyingsimilar premises accepted the compensation ordered and vacated theirrespective premises.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
i19901 > Sri L.R.
In the circumstances I see no merit in the two grounds urged by thelearned Counsel for the petitioner.
The application is accordingly dismissed without costs.
Application dismissed without costs.