1920. Present : Shaw J.

UMMA et al. v. ARUMUGAM.

354- C. R. Colombo, 70,462.

Lease-Provision that lease should terminate if Government ordered rice business to be removed to a Government stores-Action for rent- Evidence Ordinance, s. 92.

Plaintiff leased to defendant a boutique used as a rice boutique: at that time Government intended to concentrate the small rice businesses into a Government controlled spot for the purpose of prevention of plague. Consequently the following provision was inserted : " That if all the rice boutiques .... were to be ordered to be shifted to Government granary stores at Colombo during the term of this lease, this lease shall be considered null and void."

The defendant was ordered by Government to remove his business to the Manning Market. This order was made, not for the purpose of the prevention of plague, but for the purpose of controlling the sale of rice in view of the rice shortage.

Held, that the defendant was not liable to pay rent after the removal of the business to the Manning Market.
THE facts appear from the judgment.

Cooray (with him S. V. Jayewickreme), for defendant, appellant."- The lease definitely provides for a cancellation in case the sale of rice in the premises is prohibited. It is clear to what use the premises were to be put. If Government control of the rice trade prevented such use, the defendant was entitled to terminate the lease. The circumstances which necessitated such control are immaterial.

A. St. Y. Jayawardene (with him Croos-Dabrera), for plaintiffs, respondents.-There is nothing in the deed of lease to show to what use the premises were to be put. Section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance does not permit oral evidence to be led to prove this. (Canthiah v. Muttiah Chetty.1[(1915) 18 N. L. R. 264.]) The provision in the lease was that

it was to be null and void if the rice boutiques were shifted to the Government granary stores. As a matter of fact, the rice business has been ordered to be removed to a place not contemplated by the parties, viz., Manning Market. The Manning Market is not a rice store, and cannot be said to come under the term " Government granary stores."

June 25, 1920. SHAW J.-

In this case the plaintiff claimed three months' rent of a certain boutique in Gabo's lane, Colombo, under a deed of lease of June 11, 1917. The Commissioner has given judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals. The lease was a lease of a boutique which was at the time of the lease used as a rice boutique, and the lease was for three years from June 11, 1917. At the time that the lease was granted it appears to have been in the contemplation of the parties that the Government might prohibit the sale of rice in private boutiques, the idea being that Government intended to concentrate the small rice businesses into a Government controlled spot for the purpose of prevention of plague. Consequently, a provision was inserted in the lease intending to provide that the lease should Some to an end if the Government directed the rice boutiques to be closed and the business to be transferred to a Government controlled spot. The provision is as follows : " That if all the rice boutiques along with the said premises situated at 2nd Gabo's lane were to be ordered to be shifted to Government granary stores at Colombo during the term of this lease, this lease shall be considered null and void."

Perhaps this is not a very well worded provision, but it is one which can be well understood when its purpose is considered. The defendant remained in occupation of the boutique, using it as a rice store, until early in the year 1919. At that time they were directed to remove their business to a place built by the Government called the Manning Market, and they accordingly so removed it, and after April, 1919, no rice has been sold by the defendant at the premises leased or anywhere other than