Gunatilleke Et Al., V. Fernando Et Al.,

1954 Present: Gunasekara J. and Fernando A. J.

S. D. S. GUNATILLEKE et al., Appellants, and J. P. FERNANDO
et al., Respondents

S. C. 201-202-D. C. Colombo, 21,595

Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948-"Excepted premises "-Significance of dale of assessment of annual value-Distinction between " residential premises" and " business premises "-Sections 2 (4) and (5), 13, 27-Regulations 1 and 2 of Schedule (prior to amendment).

(i) The annual value of certain residential premises situated within the Municipality of Colombo was assessed in November, 1941, at Rs. 2,750. The premises were, therefore, excepted premises within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the Schedule to the Rent Restriction Act. When the premises were let in May, 1949, and at the time of the institution of the present action to eject the overholding tenant, they were used as business premises.

Held, that the tenant was not entitled to claim the protection of the Rent Restriction Act on the plea that the annual value of the premises, regarded as business premises, did not exceed Rs. 6,000. The character of the premises that was material for the purpose of applying Regulation 2 was their character at the time of the assessment.

(ii) Premises were taken on rent by the proprietor of a school and used by him as a hostel for the students and a place of residence for the warden of the hostel and some of the teachers. The business of the school itself was carried on at another place.

Held, that the premises were " residential premises " within the meaning of section 27 of the Rent Restriction Act.

Hepponstall v. Corea (1952) 54 N. L. R. 214 and Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Jayasuriya (1951) 53 N. L. R- 22, considered.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

H. W. Tambiah, with 0. S. M. Seneviratne and John de Saram, for the 2nd defendant-appellant in 201 and the 2nd defendant-respondent in 202.

H. V. Perera, Q.C., with N. M. de Silva, K. Herat, G. T. Samarawickreme, H. L. de Silva and K. Shinya, for the plaintiff-respondent in 201 and the plaintiff-appellant in 202.

M. M. K. Subramaniam, for the 1st defendant-respondent in both appeals.

Cur . adv. vult.

October 8, 1954. GUNASEKARA J.-

These appeals arise out of an action in the District Court of Colombo in which the plaintiff sued for the ejectment of the defendants from premises known as Knowsley, Bagatelle Road, Kollupitiya, upon the footing that the first defendant was an overholding tenant and the second and third were in occupation of the premises on behalf of the first, and for the recovery of damages from the first defendant at the rate of Rs. 750 a month, which was the agreed rent. The premises are situated within the Municipality of Colombo, where the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, is in operation. The defendants alleged that the premises had been let by the plaintiff to the second defendant and not to the first, that they were business premises to which the Act applied, and that the authorised rent was Rs. 287 o 25 a month. They also claimed in reconvention a sum of Rs. 8,668 o 10, made up of two sums alleged respectively to have been spent on necessary repairs to the premises and to have been paid on the plaintiff's behalf to his landlord's son so that the latter might be provided with a house without the plaintiff being ejected from the one of which he was the tenant. The learned district judge held that the premises had been let to the first defendant and not to the second, but that they were business premises to which the Rent Restriction Act applied and the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment of the defendants and also that he was entitled to recover a monthly rent of only Rs. 302 o 50 as the authorised rent and not the agreed rent of Rs. 750. He rejected the claim in reconvention.

At the conclusion of Mr. Tambiah's argument in support of the second defendant's appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document