Peiris V. Savundranayagam

1951 Present: de Silva J.

PEIRIS, Appellant, and SAVUNDRANAYAGAM, Respondent

S. C. 186-C. R. Colombo, 26,152

Landlord and tenant-Action for ejectment-Sufficiency of notice to quit-How determined-" Reasonable requirement "-Method of assessment-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948.

Defendant had been occupying certain premises for a period anterior to November 22, 1949, as the tenant of the plaintiff's predecessor in title. On November 22, 1949, plaintiff purchased the premises and defendant attorned to the plaintiff and agreed to be his tenant as from that date. A notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on November 26, 1949. requiring him to quit by December 31, 1949.

Held, that the tenancy having commenced on November 22, 1949, a calendar month had to be calculated as from that date. The notice to quit was, therefore, not valid.

Held further, that when considering whether premises are reasonably required for the occupation of the landlord within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Act, where the hardship to the tenant outweighs the hardship to the landlord the landlord's action to eject the tenant must be dismissed.

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

 H. W. Tambiah, for the defendant appellant.

J. E. R. Candappa, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 9, 1951. DE SILVA J.-

This is an action for rent and ejectment. Two questions come up for consideration in this case. Firstly, the sufficiency of notice given by the landlord to tenant and secondly, whether the premises are reasonably required for the occupation of the landlord within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Act. The plaintiff-respondent is the landlord and the

defendant-appellant the tenant. Case went to trial on seven issues. Defendant had been occupying these premises for a period anterior to the 22nd November, 1949. Plaintiff-respondent purchased the premises on 22nd November, 1949. Defendant-appellant has been in occupation from August, 1942, and he appeared to have gone into residence originally under the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title. On the 22nd November, 1949, defendant-appellant attorned to plaintiff-respondent and agreed to be his tenant as from that date. P1 is the document signed by the defendant agreeing to occupy the premises under the plaintiff as from the 22nd November, 1949, on a monthly rental of Rs. 47.33. It must be clearly borne in mind that the document does not say that defendant agreed to pay rent as from 1st December although the plaintiff in his evidence said so. Whatever the date of the commencement of the tenancy was as between the defendant and his previous landlord, P1 definitely has set at rest all doubts as regards the date of the commencement of contract of tenancy as between the plaintiff and the defendant. So that the tenancy having commenced on the 22nd November, 1949, a calendar month has to be calculated as from that date. A notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 28th November, 1949, through his proctors giving the defendant notice to quit by the 31st December, 1949. It has been argued by Counsel for the appellant that this notice is bad. He argues that inasmuch as the tenancy commenced on 22nd November,  1949, the notice given on the 28th November to quit on the 31st December is not valid. He, of course, concedes that if the notice was given on 28th November, requiring the defendant to quit by the end of January, 1950, the notice would have been good. He bases his argument on the principle laid down in Warwick Major v. Fernando 1[(1917) 4 C. W. R. 221.]. There de Sampayo J. laid down the principle thus: " It is well settled that a monthly tenant is -entitled to a month's notice, and the time from which the month should be calculated would depend on the commencement of the tenancy ". In that case the tenancy had commenced on the 15th October, 1916. Notice was given to the tena

Click Here to Read the rest of this document