L.T B. Dehideniya, J.

The Petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this court alleging the infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Article 12(1) of the Constitution by the Respondents.

The Petitioners who were former employees of Anuradhapura Municipal Council (hereinafter sometime referred to as the 1^st Respondent) have filed the present application seeking an order directing the 1^st and/or, 2^nd and/or, 3^rd Respondents to transfer the absolute ownership of the houses belonging to the 1^st Respondent, which the Petitioners occupy on tenancies. The Petitioners submit that the Petitioners (and/or their spouses) were allocated there residencies on a rent purchase basis, pursuant to the direction of the then Minister of Local Government dated 09.10.1979, under Section 3(1) of the Local Authorities Housing Act No. 14 of 1964 (as amended) marked as P-3 Petitioners state that being aware of the continuing practice of departments to transfer of houses on such tenancy agreements on completion of 20 years, the Petitioners made various requests to the 3^rd Respondent to transfer absolute ownership of the houses to the Petitioners, but it was of no avail. It was further submitted that the said requests were made on the basis that, when the direction of the then Minister marked as P-3 read together with the tenancy agreements, it establishes a Legitimate Expectation on Petitioners and place confidence in Petitioners that they are entitled to purchase the houses.

The Respondent’s contention is that the Petitioners are not entitled to absolute ownership of the said houses on the ground that the houses in question are not low cost houses but they are official quarters within the meaning of Local Authority Quarters (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 42 of 1978, in which absolute ownership cannot be granted to tenants. It was submitted that according to Section 5(A) of the Local Authorities Housing Act as amended the Local Authority has the power to transfer houses if the monthly rental of such house did not exceed twenty five rupees and the Advisory Board is satisfied that the other statutory conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, the Respondents argue that even assuming the said houses are low-cost houses, since the monthly rental mentioned in the rent agreements are forty-five rupees, the Respondents have no authority to transfer absolute ownership of the houses to the Petitioners. It is the view of the Respondents that the Petitioners have not come to Courts with clean hands.

As per the submissions tendered by the parties, it is essential for this Court to examine the scope of the definition of a low-cost house in the context of existing law and the tenancy agreement signed by the Petitioners. The 1^st Respondent has presented three categories of houses to consider in a matter similar to the present application. The said categories are as follows;

1. Slum clearance houses

2. Low-cost houses

3. Staff quarters

The Respondents’ submission is that though absolute ownership of the slum clearance houses and low-cost houses can be transferred to the occupants, absolute ownership of staff quarters/official quarters cannot be transferred under the law. It was further submitted that if the Authority is providing low-cost houses or slum clearance houses, it has to be stated clearly in the relevant letters or agreements and the words used in the tenancy agreements of the Petitioners are ‘මාණ්ඩලික නිවාස අංක .... සල්ගාදු හ ෝටලය ඉදිරිපිට’, in which the words ‘මාණ්ඩලික නිවාස’ should be identified as official/ staff quarters. Therefore, the Respondents contend that the absolute ownership of the houses given to Petitioners cannot be transferred to Petitioners and the Petitioners are bound to handover their houses when they were transferred and/or retired from the service.

When considering whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim ownership of the houses in question, it is important for this Court to delve into the background of the Petitioners case and the