SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 582

COURT OF APPEAL
Hon.M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.
M. J.M. Ershad – Appellant
Versus
The Condominium Authority and others – Respondent
CA/WRT/0194/20



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application in the nature of Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

1. M. J. M. Ershad, 81 A 2/4 Kynsey Road, Colombo 08.

PETITIONER CA No. CA/Writ/0194/2020 v.

1. The Condominium Authority, National Housing Department Building, 1st Floor, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02.

2. Madhavi S. Pathirana Yapa, General Manager, National Housing Department Building, 1st Floor, Sir Chiththampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02.

3. Cheryl Silva, 81 A, 3/1 and 3/2, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08.

4. Anne Amerasekara, 81 A 2/3, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. &

M. Ahsan. R. Marikar J.

COUNSEL : H.G. Hussain with M. G. M. Shammas and Nishaath S. Riza for the Petitioner.

Madushka Kannangara, SC for the 1st and

2nd Respondents.

Rienzie Arsecularatne, PC with Chamindri Arsecularatne and Namal Karunaratne for the 3rd and 4th Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 21.11.2023 DECIDED ON : 15.12.2023 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to take action against the 3rd and 4th Respondents to have all obstructions created and caused by them removed and to take steps preventing them from obstructing in any manner the common areas in the condominium property.

The occupants of the respective units in a condominium property are governed by the Apartment Ownership Law No. 11 of 1973, as amended1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Apartment Ownership Law’), Condominium Management Authority Law, as amended2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Condominium Management Authority Law’) and the Regulations made thereunder. The Regulations made under Section 24 of the Condominium Management

1 Amendment Act No. 45 of 1982, 4 of 1999, 27 of 2002 and 39 of 2003.

2 Amendment Act No.46 of 1982 and 24 of 2003.

Authority Law are published in the (Extraordinary) Gazette notification No.2026/25 dated 5th July 2017 (‘P 2’).

Factual background The Petitioner and the 3rd and 4th Respondents are residents of the condominium apartment complex named ‘Kynsey Arcade’. The Petitioner occupies condominium parcel No. 81A 2/4, and the 4th Respondent occupies No. 81A 2/3 on the same floor, the 2nd floor. The 3rd Respondent occupies condominium parcels No. 81A 3/1 and 81A 3/2 on the 3rd floor. The 1st Respondent is the Condominium Management Authority established by the Condominium Management Authority Law and the 2nd Respondent is the General Manager of the 1st Respondent Authority.

The Petitioner alleged that the 3rd and 4th Respondents violated the laws and Regulations applicable to the ‘Kynsey Arcade’ condominium apartment complex by encroaching on the common areas by placing flower pots, chairs, ornament stands, and other movable items, preventing the Petitioner from using those, causing a hindrance. The Petitioner submitted photographs marked ‘P 3’, ‘P 3(A)’, ‘P 4’, ‘P 4(A)’ and ‘P4 (B)’ depicting the situation.

The Petitioner stated that the 3rd Respondent was directed by the 2nd Respondent, the General Manager of the Condominium Authority, by letter dated 11th March 2016 (‘P 5’), and the 4th Respondent was directed by the Chairman of the 1st Respondent Condominium Authority by letter dated 25th March 2016 (‘P 6’) to have all obstructions placed in the common areas removed. The Petitioner states that the 3rd and 4th Respondents did not comply with the directions and the Petitioner was compelled to institute legal proceedings at the Magistrate's Court of Colombo. The Petitioner filled three private plaints against the 3rd and 4th Respondents and the 3rd Respondent's husband, Victor Silva. These private plaints were based on charges under Section 262 of the Penal Code, which pertains to unlawfully or negligently doing any act which is and which he has knowledge or has reason to believe to be like

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top