IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for a writ of certiorari made under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA WRIT-351/2023 Segu Uduman Jainul Abdeen No. 80, 1st Cross Street, Colombo 11. And also of;

138, New Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Appearing through his Registered Attorney Mohamed Thawoos Mohamed Haisam

9, Kensigton Gardens, Colombo 04 Petitioner V.

1. N.P.K.Ranaweera Director General Urban Development Authority

6th, 7th and 9th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla.

2. The Urban Development Authority

6th, 7th and 9th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla

3. Officer in Charge Police Station- Pettah Keyzer street Colombo 01.

4. C.D. Wickramarathne Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01.

5. Mohamed Ali Marikkar Durathul Afrifa No. 21, Yoosuf Avenue China Fort Beruwala.

6. Periasamy Pillai Anandaraja No. 9, Skelton Road, Colombo 05. Respondents Before : N. Bandula Karunarathna P/CA, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: Hijazz Hisbullah with Chalana Perera for the Petitioner.

Chaya Sri Nammuni, DSG with M. Kannangara, SC for the 1st to 4th Respondents Maithri Gunarathna, PC with Chan Godakumbura and Migara Gunarathna for the 6th Respondent Supported on: 11.03.2024 Written Submissions On: 28.05.2024 (by the Petitioner)

Order On : 14.06.2024 B. Sasi Mahendran, J The Petitioner instituted this action to obtain a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order which was marked as ‘X’, issued by the 1st Respondent directing the 6th Respondent to demolish the premises owned by the 6th Respondent, in which the Petitioner was a tenant in possession.

The facts of this matter very briefly are as follows.

The premises in the suit is a 2-story building, comprising several units in the said building. The Petitioner conducted business at the premises at the name of “ Telko Lanka”. The husband of the 5th Respondent was the original owner of the building and the Petitioner was a tenant and paid the rent to him. Later he came to know that the 5th Respondent intends to sell the property therefore he and other tenants offered to purchase the said premises.

On 20.07.2015 a portion of the roof of the premises collapsed due to the fire. But the Petitioner continued to remain in occupation as a tenant. Although the upper floor remained open the 5th Respondent failed and neglected to repair the said roof. Therefore, he and other tenants made an application to the rent board with regard to repairing the roof of the said building. According to the Petitioner, on the 4th of April 2016, persons claiming to be of the National Building Research Organization (NBRO) entered the premises and informed him that, Mr. Anandaraja (6th Respondent) had requested them to inspect the said premises. But he refused their request to inspect the premises.

According to the 6th Respondent, he purchased the said building and premises from the 5^th Respondent in or around March 2016. Due to a fire, the building got damaged it was extent fully destroyed and the walls were weakened. Therefore, the building became unfit for human habitation. Therefore the 6th Respondent has made a request to the National Building Research organization to inspect and issue a report regarding whether the building is suitable to repair. According to the Respondent, the said NBRO informed him that they have done a field test and in their opinion is not fit for human habitation and will be dangerous to the general public.

This fact was admitted by the Petitioner in his Petition. According to the Petitioner, the 6th Respondent has sent a letter to the Petitioner dated 25.05.2017 stating that the said NBRO has recommended that the said building be demolished as it was unfit for inhabitation. Meanwhile, the petitioner has instituted an action in the District Court preventing the 6th Respondent from ousting the Petitioner from the said premises. But the District Court refused the interim injuncti