IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA S.C. Appeal No. 97/2013 S.C (HCCA) LA Application No. 410/2012 WP/HCCA/I.N/MT/101/08 (F)

D.C. Mt. Lavinia 607/00/RE In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of the Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by the Act No. 54 of

2006 Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF Vs.

Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries”

High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries”

High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs.

Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW Karunadasa Abeywickrema No. 72, “Samram Groceries”

High Level Road, Maharagama DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER-

APPELLANT Vs.

Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Saheli Sajeera Samarakoon No. 80, Library Mawatha, Maharagama PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDENT BEFORE: B.P. Aluwihare P.C. J., Anil Gooneratne J. &

Nalin Perera J.

COUNSEL: Gamini Hettiarachchi for the Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant Ranjan Suwandaratne P.C. for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent ARGUED ON: 19.06.2017 DECIDED ON: 03.08.2017 GOONERATNE J.

This was an action filed in the District Court of Mt. Lavinia bearing No. 607/00/RE to eject the Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant and all those holding under him from the property described in the schedule to the plaint and recover arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 83,000/- and continuing damages at Rs. 10,000/- per month from 01.12.1999 until Plaintiff is placed in possession. The premises in dispute was a business premises. It was pleaded in the plaint that the monthly rental was Rs. 1000/- per mensum and the premises in question was ‘excepted premises’. It was also pleaded that the rental was in arrears since June 1993 and Defendant had put up an unauthorised structure in or about 1994. Notice to quit was sent on 18.10.1999 to terminate tenancy and hand over vacant possession on or before 01.02.1999 with damages fixed at Rs. 10,000/- as aforesaid.

Defendant party takes up the position that the premises in dispute is subject to the provisions of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 and that the Defendant is a statutorily protected tenant. Defendant denies of any arrears of rental or that he constructed an unauthorised constructions. He also takes up the position that the termination of tenancy is contrary to Act No. 7 of 1972 and tenancy has not been properly terminated. It is also pleaded that since Plaintiff refused to accept rent, he deposited rent at the Maharagama Pradeshiya Sabha. Parties proceeded to trial on 22 issues and 6 admissions. It was admitted that the rent was Rs. 1000/- per month and the premises in question was a business premises, situated with the Town Council area which is at present within the Maharagama Pradeshiya Sabhawa. It was submitted that the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s tenant and M.C. Gangodawila Case No. 5246 was filed.

The material submitted to this court indicates that the Plaintiff succeeded in the District Court and in the High Court. The issues raised in the lower court suggest that the crucial issues were whether the premises in disputes were excepted premises, or that the premises in question was subject to the provisions of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972. The other matter of some importance is whether tenancy was properly terminated, and Defendant failure to hand over vacant possession by 20.11.1999.

Supreme Court granted Leave on the following questions of law.

1. Whether their Lordships Judges have erred in law by not considering the fact that according to certified copy of the annual assessment in respect of the said premises in 1988 the annual value of the said premises is less than the relevant amount accor