SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DE PINTO W.E. v. RENT ASSESSMENT BOARD
NLR46V396



De Pinto, W.E. V. Rent Assessment Board

1945 Present: Wijeyewardene. J.

W. E. DE PINTO v. RENT ASSESSMENT
BOARD, DEHIWALA -MOUNT LAVINIA.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF Certiorari
FOR QUASHING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RENT
ASSESSMENT BOARD CONSTITUTED FOR THE DEHIWALA-
MOUNT LAVINIA URBAN COUNCIL AREA UNDER THE RENT
 RESTRICTION ORDINANCE, NO. 60 OF 1942.

Rent Restriction-Annual value of house reduced-But rates to be levied raised- Landlord's claim for increased rent-Interference by Rent Assessment Board-Legality of-Writ of Certiorari-Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, s. 6 (b).

Where an Urban Council reduced the annual value of a house but raised the percentage at which rates should be levied and the Rent Assessment Board of the area, on the application of the tenant of the house, decided that the claim of the landlord for an increased rent, under section 6 (b) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, was unjustified on the ground that section 6 (b) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance applied only to cases where, owing to an enhancement of the annual value of the property, the rates and rent have been raised-

Held, that there was a clear usurpation of jurisdiction and the finding of the Assessment Board should be quashed. Section 6 (b) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance permits a landlord to raise the rent, according to a certain formula, whenever there is an increase in the amount paid by the landlord as rates, and there is nothing in that section or even in the whole Ordinance to indicate that the Legislature contemplated only an increase of the rates occasioned by the enhancement of the annual value and not by the raising of the rate percentage.

THIS was an application for a Writ of Certiorari against the Rent Assessment Board of Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Urban Council Area.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him H. W. Jayewardene), for the petitioner.

N. Nadarajah, K.C. (with him C. Renganathan), for the 1st to 4th respondents.

No appearance for the 5th respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 5, 1945. WIJEYEWARDENE J.-

This is an application for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing certain proceedings before the Rent Assessment Board constituted for the Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Urban Council Area under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942.

The petitioner let a house in Dehiwala on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 to the fifth respondent and undertook to pay the assessment rates. At the commencement of the tenancy, the annual value of the property was Rs. 330, the standard rent in terms of section 5 (1) (b) of the Ordinance was Rs. 30 per month and the yearly amount payable as rates was Rs. 29.72 which was the amount fixed for 1941, " the year which included

the date by reference to which the standard rent was determined". In January, 1945, the Urban Council reduced the annual value from Rs. 330 to Rs. 321 but raised the percentage at which rates should be levied from 9 per cent, to 12 per cent, of the annual value. This resulted in the rates payable by the petitioner being raised from Rs. 29.72 to Rs. 38.52 per annum.

Now, section 6 (b) of the Ordinance enacts: -

" Where the rates levied under any written law in respect of any premises are, under the terms of the tenancy, payable by the landlord, and the actual amount for the time being payable per annum by way of such rates exceeds the amount so paid for the year which included the date by reference to which the standard rent of the premises is determined for the purposes of this Ordinance, the standard rent per annum may be increased by an amount which bears to such rent the same proportion as the excess amount payable per annum by way of such rates bears to the amount so paid for the year which included the aforesaid date ".

It that sub-section governs the present case, the petitioner could claim a monthly rent of nearly Rs. 39 from January 1, 1945.

The petitioner wrote to the fifth respondent on February









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top