Gunasena V. Sangaralingam Pillay & Co.,

1948 Present : Wijeyewardene A.C.J. and Windham J.
 
GUNASENA, Appellant, and SANGARALINGAM PILLAI & CO.,
 Respondent.
 
S. C. 232-D. C. Colombo, 16,243M.

Rent Restriction Ordinance-Action for ejectment by landlord-Premises reasonably required for his occupation-Proper meaning of " reasonably "-Factors to be considered by Court-Ordinance No. 60 of 1942, section 8 (c).

In considering whether premises are reasonably required for the occupation of a landlord in terms of section 8 (c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, a Court must take into account not only the position of the landlord but also that of the tenant together with any other factor that may be directly relevant to the acquisition of the premises by the landlord.
 
Fernando, v David (1948) 49 N. L. R. 210 and Atukorale v, Navaratnam (1948) 49 N. L. R. 461 not followed.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Colombo.
 
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., with S. J. Kadirgamer, for the plaintiff, appellant.
 
H. V. Perera, K.C., with Vernon Wijetunge, for the defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

 August 23, 1948. Windham J.-
 
The plaintiff-appellant carries on a large and expanding business as printer, stationer and bookseller in certain premises in Norris Board, Colombo. Until 1933 he had been a tenant of these premises, but is that year he purchased them. He also purchased from the same vendor the adjoining premises, in which the defendant-respondent company were carrying on, and still carry on, a considerable business as suppliers of tires, spare parts and accessories for motor cars and bicycles. The respondents were taken over as tenants by the appellant, and when their lease expired in 1943 they remained on as monthly tenants, at a monthly rental of Rs. 450.
 
In 1945 the appellant, finding that the premises occupied by him were inadequate to accommodate his expanding business, and desiring therefore to take over the respondents' adjoining premises, duly gave the latter notice to quit, and. thereupon sued them for eviction on the grounds that their premises were reasonably required for the purpose of the appellant's trade, business and employment.
 
The action was tried before the additional District Judge, who dismissed it. The learned Judge found that the appellant's desire to expand his business by taking in the respondents' adjoining premises was an understandable and even a laudable one, but he went on to consider the question of alternative accommodation for the respondents, and he found, justifiably in my view upon the evidence, that there were no premises into

which the respondents could move their own business if they were evicted. He accordingly came to the following conclusion :-" In the result the defendant has nowhere else to go, and in the circumstances I find it impossible to hold that the plaintiff can lawfully contend that the premises are reasonably required for his own use when the sole object of his wanting the defendant to vacate is in order that he may himself take, as his counsel put it, fortune at the flood and increase his own prosperity ". He accordingly dismissed the action.
 
The sole point at issue in this appeal is whether the learned additional District Judge was right in law in considering the question of alternative accommodation for the respondents to be a relevant factor in determining whether the respondents' premises were " reasonably required ' for the purposes of the landlord's (appellant's) business. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that if alternative accommodation was not a relevant factor, his client must fail. This question is one which has been judicially considered in a number of decisions in Ceylon. Section 8 (c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942, sets out the requirements for entertaining an eviction action on such grounds as follows, namely, that " the premises are, in the opinion of the Court, r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document