1953 Present: Weerasooriya J.

VADIVEL CHETTY, Appellant, and ABDU, Respondent

 S. C. 254-C. R. Colombo, 37,171
 

Landlord and tenant-Enhancement of rent-Not effective until there is agreement- Refusal of landlord to accept rent due-Resulting position-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, s. 13 (1) (a).

Where a tender of payment of the rent due was made by the tenant and was refused by the landlord on the ground that, as the monthly rent had been enhanced by him, a larger amount was due-

Held : (i) A landlord's unilateral act in demanding payment of a higher rent than that agreed upon does not render the tenant liable to pay the higher rent demanded.

(ii) Where a landlord refuses to accept the rent due when it is tendered to him, and has by his conduct made it clear that he will not, in the future, accept rent at the rate agreed upon, the tenant is not obliged to tender the rents for the subsequent months as and when they fall due. The tenant must, however, pay all the unpaid rent within a reasonable time if the landlord subsequently demands it or signifies his readiness to accept it.

(iii) Where the tenant has been given reasonable time to pay all unpaid rent, he cannot be said to be in arrear within the meaning of section 13 (a) of the Rent Restriction Act until one month elapses after the expiry of such reasonable time.

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

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, Q. C., with S. Canagarayar and A. Sivagurunathan, for the plaintiff appellant.

H. W. Jayewardene, with D. R. P. Goonatilleke, for the defendant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 3, 1953. WEERASOORIYA J.-

The defendant in this case, who is the respondent to the present appeal, became the monthly -tenant of premises bearing No. 90, Silversmith Lane, Colombo, belonging to the plaintiff, who is the appellant. The tenancy commenced on the 1st January, 1951, and the rent as agreed between the parties was Rs. 18 per month payable on or before the 10th of the month immediately following.

On the 7th March, 1951, before the rent for February had fallen due, the appellant through his proctor wrote the letter P4 to the respondent in which certain facts (which for the purpose of this judgment it is not necessary to set out) were alleged as entitling the appellant to demand from the respondent, as from the 1st February, 1951, a sum of Rs. 29 .18 as the monthly rent in lieu of the Rs. 18 agreed upon.

On the 10th March, 1951, the respondent's proctor wrote to the appellant's proctor the letter P5 calling for proof of the facts on the basis of which the demand for enhanced rent had been made, and on the same day the respondent wrote the letter P6 by which he forwarded a money order for Rs. 37.90, of which Rs. 18 represented the rent for the month of February in respect of No. 90, Silversmith Lane, and the balance was rent in respect of certain other premises of which also the respondent was the appellant's tenant.

The sum of Rs. 18 forwarded by the respondent as the February rent for premises No. 90, Silversmith Lane, was returned to the respondent by the appellant's proctor by his letter P7 dated the 14th March, 1951, with a further request that rent should be paid as from February at the rate of Rs. 29.18 per month. On the 9th April, 1951, the respondent wrote the letter P9 to the appellant forwarding a money order for Rs. 55.90 which included a sum of Rs. 36 as the February and March rents for premises No. 90, Silversmith Lane. The letter also set out the views of the respondent as to why the rent of these premises should continue to be Rs. 18 per month, and not Rs. 29.18 as claimed by the appellant. A reply to P9 was sent by the appellant's proctor by his letter P10 dated the 23rd April, 1951. That letter intimated to the respondent that the appellant was not prepared to accept rent at Rs. 18 per month for the premises, and the sum of Rs. 36 paid as r