Chacko, P.J. V. Mody, D.K.

1952 Present : Swan J.

P. J. CHACKO, Appellant, and D. K. MODY, Respondent

S. C. 56- C. R. Colombo, 30,846

Landlord and tenant-Notice to quit-Subsequent extension of time-Tenant's liability to pay rent-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, s. 13 (1) (a).

When a tenant who has been given due notice to quit asks for and obtains an extension of time, he must continue to pay rent during the extended period. Failure to do so renders him liable to be sued in ejectment under section 13 (1)(a) of the Rent Restriction Act.

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

H. W. Jayewardene, for the defendant appellant.

H. W. Tambiah, with N. C. J. Rustomjee, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 14, 1952. SWAN J.-

In this case the plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant to have him ejected from premises No. 354, Skinners Road North, and for the recovery of Rs. 70/98 as arrears of rent up to 30.11.50 and damages at Rs. 23/66 a month from 1.12.50.

The plaintiff claimed the right to eject the defendant without the authorization of the Board upon two grounds -

(a) that rent had been in arrear for one month after it had become due, and

(b) that the defendant had given notice to quit.

The notice relied upon was an undertaking in writing (marked P2 at the trial) dated 12.8.50 whereby the defendant agreed to vacate and give peaceful possession of the premises No. 354, Skinners Road North, on 30th November, 1950.

In his answer the defendant whilst admitting the writing referred to above stated that it was given by him on condition that the plaintiff would pay him Rs. 1,000 before he left and would also provide him with alternative accommodation. He further stated that he had been paying rent regularly up to the end of August, 1950, that on 18.9.50 the plaintiff Unlawfully stopped the water supply to the premises thereby causing him loss and damage to the extent of Rs. 40 per day. He claimed in reconvention a sum of Rs. 5,360 as damages from 18.9.50 to 31.1.51.

The plaintiff filed a replication in which he stated that he did not agree to provide the defendant with alternative accommodation and that the sum of Rs. 1,000 was to be an ex gratia payment, provided the defendant gave vacant possession on 30.11.50. With regard to the claim in reconvention the plaintiff stated that there was no water service to the premises in question, that the plaintiff gave the defendant a kitchen to use free of rent on the express condition that the defendant would give it up when required to do so ; that the defendant surrendered possession of the kitchen and was thereafter permitted to draw water through a rubber tube for a few days, and that the plaintiff, as he lawfully might, prevented the defendant from so drawing water thereafter.

The parties went to trial on the following issues :-

(1) Did the defendant on or about 12.8.50 give the plaintiff notice that he will vacate the premises in suit on or before 30.11.50 ?

(2) Was the contract of tenancy determined by the said notice ?

(3) Has rent been in arrears for a month after it became due ?

(4) If issue No. 1 is or if issues 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is the plaintiff entitled to a writ of ejectment ?

(5) What amount is due to the plaintiff on account of arrears of rent and damages ?

(6) Was the notice referred to in paragraph 4 of the plaint given in the circumstances set out in paragraph 4 of the answer ?

(7) Is such a notice a notice that is contemplated by section 13 (1) (b) of the Act ?

(8) Did the plaintiff on or about 18.9.50 cut off the water supply to the defendant's premises ?

(9) What damages did the defendant suffer thereby ?

During the course of the trial it was revealed that the plaintiff had on 26. 7. 50 given the defendant notice terminating the tenancy at the end of August, 1950.

The learned Commissioner whilst holding that P2 was at common law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document