Justin Fernando V. Abdul Rahaman

1951 Present: Gratiaen J. and Gunasekara J.

JUSTIN FERNANDO et al., Appellant, and ABDUL RAHAMAN
et al., Respondents

S. C. 167-D. C. Colombo, 16,361/M

Landlord and tenant-Action for ejectment-Decree entered against tenant-Binding effect on sub-tenant-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 324, 325-Bent Restriction. Ordinance No. 60 of 1942, s. 8 (c)-Meaning of term " obiter dictum ".

A sub-tenant in occupation of premises under a contract of sub-tenancy entered into before an action for ejectment has commenced against the tenant. is not bound by the decree in such an action unless he was joined as a. party to the proceedings.

Such a sub-tenant cannot be judicially evicted from the premises except in terms of a decree for ejectment entered against him in an action to which he was made a party.

Siripina v. Ekanayake (1944) 45 N. L: R. 403 followed.

Kudoos Bhai v. Visvalingam (1948) 50 N. L. R. 59 not followed.

Where two separate and distinct reasons are given by a Judge for his decision, each is part of the ratio decidendi, and there is no justification for regarding one of them as obiter dictum.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document