Sideek, A.H.M. V. Sainambu Natchia, A.R.M.

1954 Present: Gratiaen J.

A. H. M. SIDEEK, Appellant, and A. R. M. SAINAMBU
NATCHIYA, Respondent

S. C. 87-C. R. Kalutara, 1,604
 

Lessor and lessee-Expiration of notarial lease-Right of lessee to continue in occupation as statutory tenant-Duty to pay rent as it falls due-Tender of rent -Instance when it is not necessary-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, ss. 13 (I) (a) and 14.

A tenant who enjoys, under the Rent Restriction Act, a statutory right of occupation notwithstanding the termination of the earlier contract of tenancy must continue to pay " rent " at the original monthly rate ; if he fails to honour this obligation and is in arrear of " rent " for one month after it has become due, section 13 (1) (a) may be brought into operation to eject him.

A tenant need not formally tender payment of rent due when the landlord has in anticipation refused to accept it.

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

H. W. Jayewardene, with A. C. M. Uvais, for the defendant appellant.

H. W. Tambiah, with S. Sharvananda and A. M. Ameen, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 8, 1954. GRATIAEN J.-

This is an action for the ejectment of a tenant from premises to which the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, applies.
The plaintiff had placed the defendant in occupation of the premises as her tenant under the terms of a notarial lease for a period of three years commencing on 1st February, 1949. The agreed rent of Rs. 1,000 for the entire period of three years was paid in advance.

Under the general law, the lease automatically expired by effluxion of time on 31st January, 1952, and the plaintiff had taken the additional precaution of serving a notice on the defendant calling upon him to quit on that date because " she required the premises thereafter for the use of her sons ". Nevertheless, the plaintiff's cause of action was postponed until she could prove that one or other of the conditions laid down by section 13 of the Act had been satisfied.

A Divisional Bench of this Court has authoritatively decided (1) that the protection of the Act is equally applicable where the tenant's contractual rights of occupation, having been created under a notarial lease, come to an end, and (2) that in rent restriction legislation the word " tenant " must generally be construed as including " a person who has at one time occupied the position of a tenant, even though at the time of action the tenancy was no longer in existence "-Guneratne v. Thelenis1[ (1946) 47 N. L. R. 433.].

The present action was instituted on 5th April, 1952, i.e., two months and six days after the termination of the notarial lease. The plaintiff claimed that the provisions of section 13 were satisfied because :

(1) she reasonably required the premises " for her own trade and business " within the meaning of section 13 (1) (c) ; and

(2) the rent had been " in arrears for one month after it had become due " within the meaning of section 13 (1) (a).

On both these grounds she asked for a decree of ejectment, and for damages from 1st February, 1952, at the rate of Rs. 27.69 per mensem.

With regard to the first ground relied on by the plaintiff, the evidence clearly established that she required the premises for a proposed trade or business on behalf of her sons and not for her own purposes. Section 13 (1) (c) does not work a forfeiture of the statutory rights of the tenant in such a case.

As for the second ground relied on by the plaintiff, the learned Commissioner held that the defendant had lost his statutory protection by (at the latest) the end of March, 1952, because he had neither paid nor tendered the " rent " for the previous month i .e. after the contract had been terminated. He accordingly ordered a decree for ejectment.

It is a nice question whether a so-called " statutory tenant " whose contractual rights have come to an end can fairly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document