1952 Present : Pulle J. and Choksy A.J.

ALLES, Appellant, and KRISHNAN et al., Respondents

S. C. 407-D. C. Colombo, 19,943

Landlord and tenant-Should landlord be owner of premises let?-Improvements effected by tenant-Subsequent transfer of premises-Compensation for the improvements-From whom should claim be made?

Where improvements were effected by certain tenants with the consent of the landlord (A.) who was not the legal owner of the premises let-

Held, (i) that the tenants were entitled to claim compensation for the improvements from A., although the premises were Subsequently transferred by the legal owner and the tenants attorned to the transferee.

(ii) that the relationship of landlord and tenant can exist between the tenant and a party who is not the owner of the premises so long as the latter fulfilled the obligation of a landlord by putting the tenant into possession.

(iii) that a tenant's claim for compensation can only be made after the tenancy has expired and the tenant has vacated the premises. Upon the attornment, however, there was a notional vacation of the premises and a new tenancy came into existence.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

E. B.. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with T. Arulananthan, for the 1st defendant appellant.

N. Kumarasingham, for the plaintiffs respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

155

June 11, 1952. CHOKSY A.J.-

The plaintiffs filed this action against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,028.30, as compensation for the improvements effected by them to premises No. 106, College Street, Kotahena, which the plaintiffs had taken on rent from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant filed answer denying that the plaintiffs effected any improvements ; alternatively, he pleaded that he was not liable to pay for any improvements. He also took up the position that he collected the rent of the premises, which belonged to his late father, on behalf of his father, and after his death, on behalf of his estate and that he carried out " the necessary repairs and improvements " on behalf of the estate and heirs of his deceased father. The 2nd defendant was made a party on the footing that he had purchased the premises from the 1st defendant and therefore compensation was claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally. The second defendant's defence was a general denial, of the plaintiffs' claim and a plea of misjoinder of parties and causes of action, a plea which was raised by the first defendant also.

At the commencement of the trial the plaintiffs wanted the second defendant dismissed from the action. This was agreed to and the second defendant was dismissed from the case, plaintiffs paying the second defendant Rs. 105 by way of agreed costs. The evidence shows that the second defendant himself had disposed of the property to a third party in or about May, 1948.

At the trial the position taken up by the first defendant was that the premises at no time belonged to him but that they belonged to his father at the time of the commencement of the tenancy in or about June, 1942. His father died in 1946 and therefore the first defendant's position was that thereafter he collected the rents on behalf of his father's estate. The plaintiffs' case was that they were not aware at any stage that the first defendant's father was the owner of the premises, and that they did not become the tenants of the first defendant on behalf of his father but that the contract of tenancy was one directly between them and the first defendant and that they continued to be the first defendant's tenants till the first defendant requested the plaintiffs to pay the second defendant the rent subsequent to the second defendant's purchase of the premises whereupon the plaintiffs attorned to the second defendant and continued to pay rent to him. It would appear from the first defendant's evidence that the deceased fathe