IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Govindan Prathaban, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

Plaintiff SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/218/2012 HCCA NO: WP/HCCA/COL/354/2006(F)

DC COLOMBO CASE NO: 20125/L Vs.

Kanapathi Ravindran, 420, Old Moors Street, Colombo 01200.

Defendant AND Govindan Prathaban, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs.

Kanapathi Ravindran, 420, Old Moors Street, Colombo 01200.

Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Kanapathi Ravindran, 420, Old Moors Street, Colombo 01200.

Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs.

Govindan Prathaban, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Kankanage Nelun Perera, 146, Templers Road, Mount Lavina.

Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-

Respondent Before: Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena Hon. Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Counsel: M.A. Sumanthiran, P.C. with Vijula Arulanantham for the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Saman Galappaththi with Isuru Perera for the Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent.

Written Submissions:

By the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent on 08.03.2013 By the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant on 22.06.2013 Argued on: 06.03.2024 Written Submissions:

By the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent on 04.04.2024 By the Defendant-Respondent-Appellant on 10.04.2024 Decided on: 10.05.2024 Samayawardhena, J.

The plaintiff filed action in the District Court of Colombo on 18.11.2003 seeking declaration of title to the premises No. 420, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12, ejectment of the defendant and those holding under him therefrom, and damages in a sum of Rs. 100,000 from 01.11.2003 until restoration of the plaintiff to vacant possession on the basis, inter alia, that the defendant sublet the premises in violation of the Lease Agreement. The defendant filed answer denying subletting and sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action. At the trial, only the plaintiff and the defendant gave evidence. The plaintiff produced documents marked P1- P7 in his evidence. After trial, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on the basis that there was no subletting. On appeal, the High Court of Civil Appeal of Colombo set aside the judgment of the District Court on the basis that the defendant has sublet the premises and entered judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint. The defendant is now before this Court against the judgment of the High Court. At the hearing, both parties agreed to confine the scope of argument to the question as to whether the High Court erred in law in concluding that the defendant had sublet the premises in question.

The premises in suit are excepted premises under the Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972. The premises were admittedly leased to the defendant for 75 years by Lease Agreement marked P1 dated 18.05.1987 subject to the terms and conditions stated therein. Clause (f) of the Lease Agreement compels the defendant lessee “not to sublet or give on commission or part with possession of the demised premises or any part thereof without the prior written permission of the Lessor.” The crux of the plaintiff’s complaint is that the defendant sublet the premises to the limited liability company, Ajantha Hardwares (Private) Limited, without his written consent. The defendant admits that the business in the premises is carried on by Ajantha Hardwares (Private) Limited.

According to the official documents relevant to the said company which were compendiously marked P4, the registered office of the company is situated at the demised premises and there are four directors of the company including the defendant.

The defendant’s position is that when he entered into the Lease Agreement in 1987, there was no name for his business, and the business was later carried on under the name Bright Steel (Private) Limited, and in the year 2000, the business name was again changed to Ajantha Hardwares (Private) Limited. Although it is submitted that the defendant carried on the business in the premise