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 Court, Colombo.

H. W. Jayewardene, for the appellants.

E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with C. Renganathan, for the plaintiff respondent.

G. L. L. de Silva, for the defendant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 16, 1951, GRATIAEN J.-

This appeal relates to premises No. 97, Chatham Street, Colombo, in which the 1st appellant has for over 20 years run a barber's saloon. The premises form part of a valuable property which had belonged for many years to a gentleman named Brodie. A previous tenant of Brodie had carried on a hotel business in the other portion of the premises, but "he later sold the hotel business and assigned the tenancy rights under Brodie in respect of the entire property including No. 97 to the defendant Robert de Silva who attorned to Brodie. At the same time the 1st appellant, who had been the sub-tenant under the previous tenant in respect of No. 97, attorned to the defendant as his sub-tenant. The monthly rental for the barber's saloon-i.e., premises No. 97-was Rs. 115. The 2nd appellant is employed as a servant by the 1st appellant.

In 1944 the plaintiff purchased the entire premises, including No. 97, from Mr. Brodie, and the defendant having now attorned to the plaintiff as his tenant, continued to carry on the hotel business in the main portion of the building while the 1st appellant, as his sub-tenant, continued to Tun the barber's saloon at premises No. 97 as the 1st defendant's subtenant. Admittedly, no privity of contract was at any time established between the 1st appellant and the plaintiff.

At the end of June, 1945, the plaintiff gave the defendant one month's notice to vacate the entire premises. It has not been proved that the 1st appellant was informed of this fact at the time. The defendant in the first instance refused to quit, and on 2nd August, 1945, the plaintiff sued him in this action for ejectment pleading, inter alia, that the entire premises were " reasonably required by him for use and occupation as a place of business " within the meaning of Section 8 (c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942. The 1st appellant was not joined as a party in the action, and remained in occupation of premises No. 97, -continuing regularly to pay rent to the defendant on the footing that the sub-tenancy was still in force.

The action for ejectment was settled on 13th May, 1946, as between the plaintiff and the defendant.' The consent decree provided that the defendant should be forthwith ejected from the premises No. 97-that is, the barber's saloon occupied by the 1st appellant-but that he should, subject to certain conditions which do not affect the present issue, remain in occupation as the plaintiff's tenant of that part of the premises in which

the hotel business was carried on. Bu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document