Hameedu Lebbe Et Al. V. Adam Saibo

1948     Present: Nagalingam J.

HAMEEDU LEBBE et al, Appellants, and ADAM SAIBO et al.,
Respondents

S. C. 249-C. R. Colombo, 5,572

Rent Restriction Ordinance-Premises reasonably required for use of landlord -Starting new business-Matter to be considered-Ordinance No. 60 of 1942-Section 8 (c).

In considering , whether the premises are reasonably required for the use of the landlord in terms of section 8 (c) of the Kent Restriction Ordinance, the fact that the landlord who has no business of his own. wants to earn a livelihood by commencing a business is a matter to be taken into account.

Gunasena v. Sangaralingampillai (1948) 49 N. L. R. 473, followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests Colombo.

H. V. Perera K.C., with H. W. Tambiah, for plaintiffs, appellants.

M. I. M. Haniffa, with M. A. M. Hussein, for defendants, respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 12, 1948. NAGALINGAM J.-

This appeal once again involves the application of the provisions of section 8 (c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to a new set of facts which, happily, are not in dispute. It would appear that the first plaintiff in partnership with two of his brothers-in-law carried on a business at 97, Maliban Street. His wife died, and the relationship between him and his brothers-in-law became strained. No. 97, Maliban Street, in which the partnership business is carried on had been rented out by the parties, but since the estrangement the brothers-in-law purchased the premises, and, although the first plaintiff has his rights in the business as a partner, he finds himself in a position of insecurity in regard to his continuance as a partner in the firm. The strained relationship between him and his brothers-in-law has been aggravated by the fact that the first plaintiff is now again married. In view of his precarious position as a partner in the firm, he deemed it necessary to commence a business on his own with the aid and assistance of a brother of his present wife, who is the second plaintiff in the case. With this end in view the two plaintiffs purchased the premises, the subject-matter of this action, for a sum of no less than Rs. 35,000, of which they paid to the vendor at the date of purchase a sum of Rs. 20,000 and hypothecated the property for the balance. It is the fact, however, that at the date of purchase by the

plaintiffs of these premises the defendants were and had been tenants thereof for a number of years. It is also, again, the fact that the vendor did not undertake to give vacant possession to the plaintiffs.

The defendants attorned to the plaintiffs and paid rent to them. The plaintiffs thereafter gave notice to the defendants terminating the tenancy and stated that the premises were required by them for the purposes of their own business, the ground upon which they have sought to maintain the action in ejectment. The defendants resist the action on the ground that they are unable to leave these premises, as it is impossible for them to find other premises in that locality to carry on their business. The learned Commissioner, following the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document