1944 Present: Keuneman, Cannon and Jayetileke JJ.

MAROOF, Appellant, and LEAFF, Respondent.

171-C. R. Colombo, 94,683,

Rent Restriction Ordinance-No new jurisdiction created-Right of appeal from Court of Requests-Ordinance No. 60 of 1942, s. 8 proviso (a) to (d).

No new jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Requests in respect of the cases (a) to ,(d) contained in the proviso to section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and the right of appeal from a judgment or final order of the Court remains unaffected.

There is nothing in the section which makes a preliminary inquiry into the matters contained in the proviso imperative or prevents the Court from allowing those matters to be proved at the trial. Even if a new jurisdiction is created by section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court of Requests and the District Court and the right of appeal from those Courts is not taken away.

CASE referred by Wijeyewardene J. to a Bench of three Judges. The question referred was whether the right of appeal from a judgment or final order of the Court of Requests in an action in ejectment instituted under section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was affected by the Ordinance.

G. P. J. Kurukulasuriya (with him V. Joseph), for the defendant, respondent, raised a preliminary objection.-There is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision given by a Commissioner of Requests in a case arising under section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance (Ordinance No. 60 of 1942). There are conflicting decisions on this point- Abeyewardene v. Nicolle1; Weerasinghe v. Azeez 2; Gunapala v. Mohideen 3. The present action is one for the ejectment of a tenant brought by the landlord on the ground that the premises in question are reasonably required for occupation by the landlord. It is a special ground of action provided for by a special emergency enactment. The Rent Restriction Ordinance applies, according to section 2, only in certain specified areas and is not applicable in all Courts of Requests and District Courts. By this Ordinance the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court of Requests under section 75 of the Courts Ordinance is ousted and a new jurisdiction is conferred on it to entertain tenancy cases only under certain conditions. A preliminary inquiry as to whether such conditions are present is necessary before the plaint is accepted-Rosaline Nona v. Jan Singho 4. The words '' no action shall be entertained '' in section 8 would qualify the proviso too-Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd., v. Bazwada Municipality 5. The Court of Requests or District Court, for the purpose of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, is thus a special tribunal and, in the absence of any section in the Ordinance enabling appeals,

no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from its decisions-Abeyewardene v. Nicolle (supra); Gunapala v. Mohideen (supra); Sangarapillai v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Colombo1; Soertsz v. Colombo Municipal Council 2; Kanagasunderam v. Podihamine 3; Vanderpoorten v. The Settlement Officer 4. The conclusive nature of the decision of the Court of Requests or District Court is similar to that of the Assessment Board under section 12.

H. W. Jayawardene (with him G. T. Samarawickreme), for the plaintiff,, appellant.-Section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not confer any new jurisdiction on the Court of Requests. It merely limits the jurisdiction which the Court of Requests exercised previously under section 75 of the Courts Ordinance. As regards grounds (c) and (d) of the proviso a separate preliminary inquiry as to jurisdiction is not necessary in order to entertain the plaint-The King v. Nat Bell Liquors, Ltd.5. In view of the fact that the jurisdiction which the