Cader V. Nicholas Appuhamy

1948     Present: Nagalingam J.

CADER, Appellant, and NICHOLAS APPUHAMY, Respondent

S. C. 147-C. R. Colombo, 10,874

 

Landlord and tenant-Agreement with owner to collect rent-Attornment by tenant-Termination of agreement-Right of tenant to refuse payment to agent-Estoppel-Evidence Ordinance, Section 116.

Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the owner of the premises in question to possess and manage her property and collect her rents and the defendant, in consequence, attorned to the plaintiff and paid him the rent. Thereafter the owner determined the agreement and notified the defendant of that fact.

Held, that the defendant was not liable thereafter to pay rent to the plaintiff and was not estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Ordi­nance from showing that the plaintiff had since the attornment lost his title.

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

E B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with S. P. Wijewickreme and S. Kulatilleke, for plaintiff, appellant.

M. M. K. Subramaniam with C. Weeramantry, for defendant, respondent.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

November 11, 1948. NAGALINGAM J.-

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo, dismissing the plaintiff's action for rent and ejectment against the defendant. It would appear that the premises occupied by the defendant is one of several tenements the admitted owner of which is Noorul Hatheeka. By an agreement (P1) of 1948 entered into between

 

Noorul Hatheeka and the plaintiff, it was inter alia agreed that the plaintiff who had been entrusted by Noorul Hatheeka with the possession and management of the entire premises should continue to occupy and manage the said premises for a period of three years. The plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement P1 obtained from the defendant a " tenancy agreement " P2 dated August 8, 1947. Noorul Hatheeka purported to cancel the agreement P1 and notified the defendant among others not to pay rent to the plaintiff by letter P1 dated November 15, 1947. The defendant refused to pay rent thereafter and the sequel is the present action which has been instituted by the plaintiff claiming not only arrears of rent but also ejectment after formal notice to quit had been: given to the defendant.

The contention on behalf of the defendant is that the plaintiff was at no time a lessee of the premises which the plaintiff claimed to be. The defendant urges that at best the document P1 is an authority conferred on the defendant by Noorul Hatheeka to collect rents on her behalf and that on the cancellation by Noorul Hatheeka of the authority conferred on the plaintiff the latter ceased to have any rights to demand or recover rents or even to assert any right to terminate the tenancy of the defendant.

The dispute between the parties centres round the question as to what is the true legal relationship between the parties to the agreement P1. On the face of the document it does not claim or purport to be a lease-by Noorul Hathee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document