Back
CORERA v. MUTTUCUMARU et al.
NLR56V80
1954 Present: Gunasekara J.
C. V. S. CORERA, Appellant, and S. MUTTUCUMARU et al,,
Respondents
S. C. 7-C. R. Colombo, 46,054
Rent Restriction Act, No. 29
of 1948-Joint landlords-" Reasonable requirement "" of premises for some only of
them-Tenant's liability then to be ejected-Sections 13 (1) (c),
27-Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), s. 2.
Where there are two joint landlords, they cannot obtain possession of premises
under proviso (c) of Section 13 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act unless they
prove that the premises are reasonably required for occupation as a residence
for both of them. The tenant cannot be ejected if there is proof of reasonable'
requirement of the premises for only one of them.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with M. L. de Silva, for the defendant-appellant.
C. Thiagalingam, Q.C., with H. W. Tambiah, S. Sharvananda and T.
Parathalingam, for the plaintiffs-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 11, 1954. GUNASEKARA
J.-
This is an appeal from an order of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo, for
the ejectment of a tenant from premises to which the Rent Restriction Act, No.
29 of 1948, applies. They had been let to the Appellant by the two respondents,
who are co-owners, and the tenancy had been duly terminated. The learned
commissioner has held that the premises are reasonably required for occupation
as a residence for one of the landlords. The question for decision is whether
this finding is .sufficient to bring the case within paragraph (c) of the
proviso to section 13 (1) or whether the landlords have to prove that the
premises are reasonably required for occupation as a residence for both of them.
The subsection provides that no action for the ejectment of the tenant of any
premises to which the Act applies shall be instituted in any court unless the
Rent Control Board has authorized its institution. It is enacted by the proviso
that the authorization of the Board shall not be necessary in any case where "
(c) the premises are, in the opinion of the Court, reasonably required for
occupation as a residence for the landlord or any member of the family of the
landlord, or for the purposes of the trade, business, profession, vocation or
employment of the landlord". It is contended for the appellant that by reason of
the provisions of section 2 of the Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2) the word "
landlord " must be read as " landlords ", where there are more landlords than
one, and therefore the respondents must prove that the premises are reasonably
required for occupation as a residence for both of them.
In the English case of Mclntyre v. Hardcastle [1 [1948] 1 All E. R. 696.
], where two landlords claimed possession of a house on the ground that
one of them required it for occupation as a residence for herself, the Court of
Appeal considered the effect of a provision which is somewhat similar to
paragraph (c) of the proviso to section 13 (1) of our Act. That provision, which
is in schedule 1 paragraph (h) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions
(Amendment) Act, 1933, empowers the court to make an order for the ejectment of
a tenant from a dwelling house if " the dwelling house is reasonably required by
the landlord .... for occupation as a residence for (i) himself; or (ii) any son
or daughter of his over 18 years of ; or (iii) his father or mother ". In the
case of Baker v. Lewis [2 [1946] 2 All E. R. 592; [1947] 1 K. B. 186.] it
had been held that by reason of
the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889, section 1, the word " landlord "
in this passage includes the plural where there is more than one landlord, and
Asquith, L.J., had said :
Where there are two or more joint beneficial owners, (i), (ii) and (iii) of (h)
should, I think, be read as follows : in (i) for " himself" read " themselves ",
in (ii) for " any son or daughter of his " read " any son or daug
