IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for appeal against order in the revision application by the High Court of Kegalle dated 09.08.2018 against the order dated 17.09.2015 by the Magistrate Court of Ruwanwella under the Provincial High Court Act No. 19 of 1990 (Special Provisions) read together with Section 154(G) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Divisional Secretary, Case no: CA (PHC) 151/2018 Bulathkohupitiya HC (Kegalle) Applicant Case no: REV 4953/15 Vs Ruwanwella Magistrate Court Case no: 58119/Ejectment Walideniye Gedera Gamini Sarath Kumara, Welikanda Area, Bulathkohupitiya Respondent AND Walideniye Gedera Gamini Sarath Kumara, Welikanda Area, Bulathkohupitiya Respondent –Petitioner Divisional Secretary, Bulathpkohupitiya Applicant- Respondent Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

Respondent AND BETWEEN Walideniye Gedera Gamini Sarath Kumara, Welikanda Area, Bulathpkohupitiya Respondent –Petitioner-Appellant Divisional Secretary, Bulathpkohupitiya Applicant- Respondent-Respondent Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Respondent- Respondent Before: Prasantha De Silva, J.

K.K.A.V. Swarnadhipathi, J.

Counsel: M. J. Wimalarathna and Sriyani Manamperi for the Respondent-

Petitioner-Appellant Amasara Gajadeera, SC for the Respondent Both Counsel agreed to this matter by way of written submissions.

Written Submissions: 10.06.2022 for Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant

31.05.2022 for Applicant- Respondent-Respondent filed on Delivered on: 30.03.2023 Prasantha De Silva, J.

JUDGMENT The Divisional Secretary of Bulathkohupitiya being the applicant has issued a ‘Quit Notice’ in terms of section 3 of the State Lands (Recovery) of Possession Act No. 07 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 04.03.2015 directing the Respondent namely Gamini Sarath Kumara to vacate the premises more fully described in the schedule to the said Quit Notice and handover the vacant possession of the same on or before 10.04.2015.

It appears that the Respondent had taken up the position that the said Quit Notice was not properly served on him. However, the Grama Niladhari by his letter dated 09.03.2015 had informed that the said Quit Notice was delivered on 09.03.2015 and the Respondent’s wife had refused to accept it in the absence of the Respondent (husband). Consequently, the Quit Notice was displayed in the impugned premises sought to be vacated.

The Respondent had contended before the Magistrate Court that the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of 30 days’ notice stipulated in section 3(1)(b) of the Act.

The Respondent had contended that the time period from the date the Quit Notice was served on him and the date of institution of action in the Magistrate’s Court is less than 30 days therefore, the Applicant had failed to comply with a mandatory requirement laid down in the Act.

The Respondent argued that the said Quit Notice was served on him on 12 March 2015 and the time limit imposed on him to vacate the premises was on 10 April 2015, which is less than a month The said Quit Notice was sent via registered post on 04.03.2015 and it was handed over to the Respondent on 12.03.2015. Which is 28 days prior to the date mentioned on the Quit Notice to vacate the premises. Thus, it is apparent that the Respondent is not materially prejudiced by serving the Quit Notice 28 days prior to date on which the Respondent is required to vacate the premises.

Afterwards, Applicant had filed an application for ejectment on 06.05.2015 in the Magistrate Court of Ruwanwella seeking an order of ejectment. It is seen that the Respondent was given more than 30 days to vacate the impugned premises by the time of institution of action. In fact, Respondent had nearly 54 days to vacate the premises.

As such, the objection taken up by the Respondent that he was not given 30 days’ notice to vacate the pre