Back
ELLIS v. CAREEM
NLR5V44
ELLIS v. CAREEM.
D. C. Colombo, 2,165.
Land Acquisition Ordinance, No. 3 of 1876-" Person interested "-Reversionary lessee.
The owner of a reversionary lease is not a person interested in the property sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Ordinance.
Though the result of the property being taken
over by the Government will result in loss to the reversionary lessee,-in that it renders the lessor unable to fulfil his agreement to put the lessee in possession when the time comes for him to take possession,
and the lessee cannot sue the lessor or the Crown for damages,-yet no compensation can be given him when the Ordinance awards none.
THIS was a reference by the Government Agent of the Western Province under the Land Acquisition Ordinance. No. 3 of 1876, to acquire a land situated at Maradana, containing in extent 4 acres and 22 perches. The Government Agent tendered a sum of Rs. 39,818 as a sufficient compensation, but the owners demanded Rs. 100,000, and their lessee, who was in possession of the land, claimed the sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation in respect of three leases in his favour: the first expiring on the 13th June, 1900, nearly two months after the date of the libel of reference, and the second a lease to him from the 1st July, 1900, for a term of two years, the rent payable being at the rate of Rs. 250 per month.
The case was tried with the aid of two Assessors, Messrs. F. C. Loss and David Perera. The former assessed the proper compensation to be Rs. 50,000 and the latter at Rs. 37,500.
The District Judge valued the premises at Rs. 50,000, and as to the lessee's claim he delivered judgment as follows:-
" As between the plaintiff and the first and second claimants, the Court has held that the value of. the land acquired by the Crown is Rs. 50,000. The third claimant, who is the lessee of the land, claims to be paid Rs. 6,000 out of this sum as compensation.
The lease in his favour (C 2) is dated 21st August, 1899, and is for two years commencing from the 1st July, 1900. The land appears to have been acquired by the Grown between January and March, 1900. It is contended on behalf of the lessors, the first and second claimants, that the lessee is not entitled to compensation, as the lease had not commenced, and the lessee was not in possession of the lease premises at the date of the acquisition by the Crown, and I have been referred to Voet, lib. XIX., tit. II., section 16. I do not see that that passage applies to this case. I am of opinion that the lessee is entitled to compensation to the extent of his interest in the land acquired.
With regard to the value of that interest, there is the evidence of the third claimant, who was called as a witness by the lessors as against the Crown in order to prove that the land was worth Rs. 100,000. I did not believe that evidence as to income, but I think that the first and second claimants are bound by that evidence, as I must accept it as against them,
"I find that the third claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,243.36 as compensation, and he is entitled to draw that amount from the Rs. 50,000.
The first and second claimants are therefore entitled to Rs. 46,756.84, and the third claimant to Rs. 3,243.36.
The first and second claimants to pay the third claimant his costs of this contention."
The owners appealed.
Van Langenberg and H. J. C. Pereira, for appellants.
Ramanathan, S.-G., for respondent.'
Their Lordships, after argument, considered Rs. 50,000 to be sufficient compensation to the appellants, but desired to hear further argument as regards the right of the lessee to obtain compensation in regard to the new lease, which had not begun to run at the time of the acquisition by the Crown.
Sampayo, for the lessee, respondent contended that his client had an interest in the land acquired by virtue of his lease, and quoted 3 N. L. R. 48; 4,S. C. C. 151; Indian Land Acquisition Act, No. 10 of 1870 (section 19)
