IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.

S.C. Appeal No: 192/2015 G.G.G. Mohamed Ismile Safeer Mohomed, SC/HCCA/LA No: 495/2014 Palliyakotuwa, Batugoda, and 496/2014 Mahanuwara.

PLAINTIFF WP/HCCA/COL. No: 25/2009(F) Vs.

and 44/2009(F)

1. P.G. Sulaiman Lebbe DC Colombo Case No: 8448/RE Nizzamdeen, and 8449/RE Palliyakotuwa, Ambatenna.

2. Kumaresan Nadar Thangasamy, No. 149, Maliban Street, Colombo 11.

DEFENDANTS AND Kumaresan Nadar Thangasamy, No. 149, Maliban Street, Colombo 11.

2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs.

G.G.G. Mohamed Ismile Safeer Mohomed, Palliyakotuwa, Batugoda, Kandy.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT P.G. Sulaiman Lebbe Nizzamdeen, Palliyakotuwa, Ambatenna.

1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN G.G.G. Mohamed Ismile Safeer Mohomed, Palliyakotuwa, Batugoda, Kandy.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-

APPELLANT Vs.

P.G. Sulaiman Lebbe Nizzamdeen, Palliyakotuwa, Ambatenna.

1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT -RESPONDENT Kumaresan Nadar Thangasamy, No. 149, Maliban Street, Colombo 11.

(And now presently at A6, Bloemendhal Flats, Kotahena, Colombo 13.)

2nd DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT Before : S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.

: Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J.

: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

Counsel : Nuwan Bopage with Dinusha Thiranagama instructed by Sunara Jayawardena for the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Appellant.

: Respondents are absent and unrepresented.

Argued on : 14-02-2025 Written Submissions : 08-01-2016 (By the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner)

Decided on : 04-04-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) on the basis of being aggrieved of the two separate judgments pronounced by the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo in Case Numbers WP/HCCA/COL/25/2009/(F) and WP/HCCA/44/2009/(F), while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction.

From the impugned judgments, the common judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Colombo in District Court of Colombo Case No. 8448/RE and 8449/RE, where the judgments were in favour of the plaintiff were set aside, and the two actions filed by him before the District Court was dismissed.

The proceedings of the two cases filed before the District Court suggest that it has been agreed by the parties to have one trial with regard to the above mentioned two District Court cases and to have a common judgment, as the parties in both cases, the causes of action, as well as the reliefs asked had been the same.

This is a matter where the plaintiff filed an action against the 1st defendant of both the cases and the 2nd defendant-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred as the 2nd defendant) seeking to evict the 2nd defendant from the premises mentioned in the schedules of the two plaints. The action had been instituted on the basis that the 1st defendant-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st defendant), who is his tenant of both premises, has sub-let it to the 2nd defendant without authorization.

It was an admitted fact that the two premises were governed by the provisions of the Rent Act and were business premises.

In Case No. 8448/RE, the relevant premises mentioned in the schedule had been No. 149, Maliban Street, Colombo 11, while in Case No. 8449/RE, the relevant premises had been No. 147/1/8, Maliban Street, Colombo 11.

It is also clear that the assessment No. 149 referred to in Case No. 8448/RE is the ground floor, and the assessment No. 147/1/8, which is the subject matter of the Case No. 8449/RE, is the upper floor of assessment No. 149. This in effect shows that the action has been in relation to one building with two assessment numbers.

It appears from the case record that the 1st defendant has not taken part in the case, and it was the 2nd defendant who has contested the action initiated by the plaintiff. Although there had been n