M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction

The Applicant, T.G. Perera, the landlord of the property at No. 98, Janapriya Mawatha, Panadura, submitted an application under Section 18A of the Rent Act, [No. 7 of 1972, as amended.] to the 3^rd Respondent, the Housing Commissioner of the Western Province, seeking permission to demolish the building for redevelopment. It is an undisputed fact that late T.G. Perera was the landlord while the Appellants were the tenants.

While the inquiry was ongoing, T.G. Perera passed away, and letters of administration for his estate were granted to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents. As a result, the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents were substituted in place of late T.G. Perera. The Respondents-Petitioner-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellants’) filed statement of objections to the application made by the landlord, the initial applicant.

Following the inquiry, the 3^rd Respondent made an order on 25^th April 2014, allowing the application of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents, subject to the payment of Rs. 374,400/- as compensation to the Appellants.

The aggrieved Appellants sought a mandate in the nature of writ of certiorari from the Provincial High Court of Colombo to quash the order issued by the 3^rd Respondent.

The learned High Court Judge of Colombo dismissed the Appellant’s application by his judgment dated 5^th October 2016. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned High Court Judge.

Analysis

Undoubtedly, the primary objective of the Rent Act is to protect the rights and interests of tenants. Enacted in 1972, the Rent Act underwent a significant amendment in 1980, [Rent (Amendment) Act No. 55 of 1980.], when the Legislature introduced Section 18A. This provision allowed landlords to apply to the Housing Commissioner for permission to demolish rented residential premises that were 50 years or older, if redevelopment was necessary for more efficient use of the land. In 2002, the Legislature further amended the Act, reducing the minimum age of the building to 40 years and extending scope of the application of Section 18A to business premises as well, [Rent (Amendment) Act No 26 of 2002.]. In my view, the introduction of Section 18A was intended to relax the protection afforded to tenants under the Rent Act, enabling landlords to utilize their rented properties in a more efficient and effective manner.

For clarity, I will reproduce Section 18A of the Rent Act, which reads as follows:

‘18A. The Commissioner of National Housing may –

(a)Upon application made in that behalf by the owner of any building used for residential or business purposes and constructed at least forty years prior to the date of the application;

(b)After affording the occupants of such building an opportunity of being heard, make order authorizing such owner to demolish such building if the Commissioner is satisfied that the re-development of the land on which such building stands is necessary for the more efficient utilization of such land.’

Accordingly, in an application under Section 18A of the Rent Act, the following facts must be established:

i. That the building in question was at least 40 years old at the time of the application.

ii. That the redevelopment of the land on which the building is situated is necessary for more efficient utilization of the land.

In the case of Aboobucker v. Wijesinghe and others, [1990]2 Sri L.R. at page 278. , (C.A.) His Lordship Wijeyaratne J., in considering an application for a writ of certiorari against the decision of the Commissioner of National Housing, examined Section 18A of the Rent Act. His Lordship observed that, When the Legislature enacted Section 18A in the terms ‘if the Commissioner is satisfied’ the evident intention of the Legislature was to make the Commissioner the sole Judge of whether conditions existed to warrant demolition.’

In the recent judgment of this Court in Kithsiri Pradeep Witharana v. P. Leka Geethanjalee Perera and others, CA/PHC/123/2012, decided on 02.03.2017. , th