1950 Present : Basnayake J.

YOOSUF et al., Appellants, and SUWARIS, Respondent

S. C. 103-C. R. Kandy, 3,342

Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948-Section 13-Landlord who is shareholder of a company-Cannot claim premises for purpose of company's business-Landlord's need must be immediate-Order giving unsuccessful tenant time to quit- Propriety of such order.

A shareholder who owns houses is not entitled to make use of the provisions of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act in order to eject a tenant for the purpose of providing his company with a place of business.

A landlord's need must be immediate and present in order that the court may have jurisdiction to entertain his action to eject a tenant under the Rent Restriction Act.

Obiter : A landlord who succeeds in an action for ejectment is entitled to execute his decree immediately and time can only be given by consent of parties or, in the event of an appeal, where the execution of the writ would cause irreparable damage to the unsuccessful party.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of requests, Kandy.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with M. I. Mohamed, for the defendants appellants.

E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with Cyril E. S. Perera, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 3. 1950. BASNAYAKE J.-

This is an action instituted by one A. E. Suwaris against five persons who are carrying on business in partnership under the business name

of " Idroos Hardware Stores " at No. 67 Trincomalee Street, Kandy, (hereinafter referred to as No. 67). On 1st April, 1946, the plaintiff became the owner of the premises in which the defendants are carrying on business. On 25th July, 1947, the plaintiff gave the defendants notice of termination of their tenancy on 30th August, 1047, on the ground that the premises were reasonably required by him " for the purpose of the plaintiff's business called Suwaris & Sons, Ltd ". The defendants in resisting the plaintiff's action for ejectment assert that the premises are not reasonably required by the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint " as the plaintiff owns several business places within the Municipal limits of Kandy ".

The plaintiff, who owns several houses and lands in and around Kandy, was a contractor by trade. He started and carried on a business under the business name of " Suwaris & Co. ". In due course he formed a limited liability company registered under the name of "A. R. Suwaris & Sons, Ltd ". The registered company has contracted with the Government of Ceylon to put up buildings for the University of Ceylon. The plaintiff as an individual has no building contracts. The stores and building materials required for the execution of the contract of A. R. Suwaris & Sons, Ltd., are kept at Mahaiyawa, and others at Katukelle and Peradeniya, all places around Kandy.

The plaintiff states that he requires No. 67 for the purpose of storing the cement needed for the contract entered into by A. E. Suwaris & Sons. Ltd. It is not the only property owned by the plaintiff in Kandy. He has a timber depot in the same street as No. 67, and he has several houses in Peradeniya which is nearer the University site than Kandy.

Learned counsel for the appellant makes the submission that the plaintiff's action is not entitled to succeed on the following grounds :

(a) that the premises are required, not by the plaintiff himself but by another person, viz., the legal person of A. R. Suwaris & Sons, Ltd.

(b) that in any event the premises are not reasonably required by the plaintiff, and

(c) that the plaintiff's request for the premises is not made bona fide,

I am inclined to agree with all the submissions of learned counsel. The plaintiff is the landlord of the premises in question and is in his individual capacity only a shareholder of A. E. Suwaris & Sons, Ltd. for whose use he claims the premises. The evidence does not disclose how many shares the plaintiff holds in the company. E