Judgment

This is an appeal preferred against the Order made by the learned High Court Judge of Monaragala on 06.12.2017 dismissing the revision application filed against the Order of the learned Magistrate of Monaragala dated 20.11.2017 in case bearing No. 82466. It appears that Estate Superintendent of Janatha Estate Development Board being the competent authority had filed an application bearing No. 82466 in terms of Section 6 of the Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1969, to recover possession of the premises described in the schedule of the application. The Respondent namely U.K.G. Wimalaratne had been in possession of the said premises and upon serving the notice of the said application, the Respondent had shown cause why he should not be quit from the subject premises by the competent authority. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate pronounced the Order in favour of the competent authority, allowing the application to evict the Respondent from the subject premises.

Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent-Petitioner had invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court of Monaragala, in case bearing No. 56/2017. After the application was supported, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the application of the Respondent-Petitioner in limine on the ground that Respondent-Petitioner had not shown the learned Magistrate’s Order as ex-facie wrong in law.

Being aggrieved by the said Order of the learned High Court Judge dated 06.12.2017, the Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Appellant) had preferred this appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant pointed out that the competent authority had made the application by way of a notice to the Magistrate’s Court under Section 3 of the Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1969. However, the learned Magistrate had pronounced the Order taking into consideration the provisions of ‘State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act’ and not under the Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act. Thus, the Appellant contended that the impugned Order of the learned Magistrate is fundamentally wrong in law.

Court draws the attention to the Order of the learned Magistrate where the learned Magistrate states that;

It appears that the said form (ආ) filed by the Respondent-Competent Authority is under the Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1969 and not under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979. However, the learned Magistrate had referred to the said form (ආ) under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 instead of Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1969.

In this instance, Court draws the attention to Section 7 of the Government Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1969 which stipulates that;

“(1) Upon receipt of an application for ejectment in respect of any Government quarters, a Magistrate’s Court shall forthwith issue, and if need be reissue, a writ of possession to the Fiscal requiring and authorizing such Fiscal before a date specified in the writ, not being a date earlier than three or later than seven clear days from the date of the issue of such writ, to deliver possession of such quarters to the competent authority or other authorized person specified in the quit notice relating to such premises. Such writ shall be sufficient authority for the said Fiscal or any police officer authorized by him in that behalf to enter such quarters with such assistants as the Fiscal or such officer shall deem necessary and to give possession accordingly, and to eject the occupier and his dependents, if any, from such quarters.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any other law, the issue or re-issue of a writ of possession under subsection (1) shall not be stayed in any manner, by reason of any steps taken or proposed to be taken in any court with a view to questioning the issue or re-issue of such writ of possessio