RAMASAMY
vs.
FOENANDER

COURT OF APPEAL
DEEPALI WIJESUNDERA. J
M.M.A. GAFFOOR.J
CA 1146/95(F)
DC KANDY 2228/RE
FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Rent Act No. 7 of 1972- Section 22 [6] Section 22[8] Reasonable requirement- When plaintiff dies - Could the daughter proceed with the application? - Should the needs and inconvenience of both be compared?

The plaintiff-respondent instituted action for ejectment and damages on the ground of reasonable requirement- Section 22[6]. The defendant-appellant pleaded that his requirement is greater than that of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was only interested in selling the premises. The learned District Judge held with the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, whilst the appeal was pending, the original plaintiff died and the daughter was substituted.

it was also contended that, with the demise of the plaintiff the action abates.

Held:

[1] The decree in an ejectment action once entered confers a proprietary interest on the plaintiff landlord because the cause of action which was personal to the plaintiff becomes merged in the decree for ejectment.  The proprietary interests conferred in the plaintiff by the decree pass to his daughter his legal representative on the plaintiffs death.

Per M.M.A. Gaffoor. J.-

Comparing the needs and inconvenience of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court has to form an opinion whether the premises are reasonably required for the occupation as a residence for the landlord. The tenants' difficulties do not come into the matter at all, the only thing that matters is the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement".

[2] The fact that the' deceased's ailing widow and children are living in a rented house and paying Rs. 15000/- as rent per month are matters to be looked into on the question of reasonable requirement of the landlord. In dealing with the question of reasonableness of the landlords requirement, the fact is that the requirement of the landlord is greater and therefore the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree of ejectment.

APPEAL from the judgment of the District Court of Kandy.

Cases referred to :

1. Sulaiman vs. Aboobucker - 1992 1 Sri LR 314
2. Arnolis Appuhamy vs. De Alwis - 60 NLR 141
3. Goldtherpe vs. Bain - 1952- 3 QB 455
4. Weerasena vs. Mathupala - 1992 1 Sri LR 389
5. Atukorale vs. Navaratnam - 49 NLR 461 at 469

Hemasiri Withanachchi for defendant appellant. Chandimal Mendis with Viraj Vithanage for plaintiff respondent.

June 25, 2015

M.M.A.GAFFOOR J.,

The Plaintiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff') filed this action on 31.08.1989 against the Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant") for ejectment and damages on the ground of reasonable requirement for him and for his family members (para. 4 of

the Plaint), The Defendant filed answer denying the Plaintiffs action and pleaded that his requirement is greater than that of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff was interested in selling the premises and therefore the Plaintiffs action be dismissed.

Originally the Plaint was filed by two Plaintiffs, but when the Plaint was amended the 2nd Plaintiff was dropped and the 1st, Plaintiff continued with this action.

The Answer was amended twice and the 2nd amendment was after the trial began and the Issues were framed.

At the trial two Admissions were recorded and the Plaintiff raised Issues 1-9 and the Defendant raised Issues 10-13.

According to the evidence in this case, the premises were given on rent by the Plaintiff's mother E.H. Abeygunasekera, to the Defendant and she died in1981 and thereafter the Plaintiff became the landlord. Thereafter the Plaintiff instituted this action for ejectment of the Defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the Plaintiff and the members of his family, in terms of Section 22(6) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972.

The two Admissions were that the Defendant had received the notice to quit to t