1947 Present: Dias J.

TALAGALA, Appellant, and GANGODAWILA CO-OPERATIVE
STORES SOCIETY, LIMITED, Respondent.

S. C. 155-C, R. Colombo, 3,313.

Rent Restriction Ordinance-House let to Co-operative Society-Furnished house-Application of Ordinance. No. 60 of 1942.

The Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, applies to bodies corporate and to furnished houses.
Where a question which is raised for the first time in appeal is-a pure question of law and in not a mixed question of law and fact, it can be dealt with. The construction of an Ordinance is a pure question of law.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo.

C. Chellappah, for the plaintiff-appellant.

No appearance for the defendant-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

473

September 3, 1947 DIAS J,-

The plaintiff let the premises in question on the written agreement, marked ' A to the respondent co operative society T he hiring included the fitting and furniture referred to in the inventory attached to the agreement A it was agreed that at the termination of the tenancy the defendant was to return to the plaintiff the fittings and furniture

Plaintiff alleging that the tenancy was terminated after due notice to quit sued the defendant for ejectment and damages It was alleged that the plaintiff required the premises for the purposes of his i trade The defendant denied this

The parties went to trial on the following issues -

(1) Were the premises rented out to the defendant subject to the. terms of an agreement embodied in the document marked A '

(2) If so, is the plaintiff entitled to eject the defendant '

(3) Are the premises in question reasonably required by the plaintiff fox the purpose of his own use in connection with his trade. and business with in the meaning of section 8c of the Rent Restriction Ordinance ?

(4) What amount if any is due to plaintiff as rent and damages ?

The Commissioner of Requests held that the premises were not reasonably required for the occupation of the plaintiff for the purposes of his trade or business It was further held that the defendant co- operative society, which served the needs of a wide circle of the public, could not obtain suitable alternative accommodation He therefore dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs, but ordered the defendant to pay whatever damages were due to the plaintiff as from August 1 1946

In appeal three points were argued (a) that the finding of the Commissioner on the facts were erroneous (b) that the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not apply to corporations and (c) that when ' furnished premises" were hired, the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not apply The last two point were not raised at the trial nor is. there any thing, to show that counsel argued these questions' before the trial Judge who has not referred to them in his judgment There being" no appearance for the respondent, I am labouring under the further difficulty of having no assistance on these points from the respondent Point (b) has not been raised in the petition of appeal.

I see no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial Judge. The principle laid down by the authorities is that all contentious matter is focussed in the issues of law or fact raised at the trial, and that whatever is not involved in those issues is taken to be admitted As a general rule therefore, it is not open to a party to put forward for the first time in appeal a new ground unless it might have- been put forward in the trial Court under one of the issues framed and the Court of Appeal has before it all the requisite material furthermore if the new matter involves a question of fact, it must be clear that the parties whose conduct is called in question could have offered no satisfactory explanation if they had an

opportunity of doing so in the witness box-Appuhamy v. Nona 1 Where the question raised for the first time in appeal, however, is a pure question of