1956 Present: Gunasekara, J., and Sinnetamby, J.

E. NALLATHAMBY, Appellant, and MRS. G. M. LEITAN;
Respondent

S. C. 156-D. C. Gampaha, 3151 /'M

Rent Restriction Act-Meaning of term " premises "-How Jar it includes land on which a building stands.

Where a property consisting of a house and garden is let as one unit, the-landlord cannot subsequently claim that the standard rent should be calculated on the basis that the premises let consists of two parts and that only the portion, where the house stands is subject to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, to the exclusion of the remaining bare land.

Where a house has been let together with land, what one has to ascertain is whether the house is an adjunct of the land or the land an adjunct of the house- It is a pure question of fact. If the land is considered to be an adjunct of the house, the Rent Restriction Act will apply, but if the converse is the case the Act will not apply.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Gampaha.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with M. Somasunderam and S. Sharvananda, for the plaintiff appellant.

Walter Jayawardene, with Neville Wijeratne, for the defendant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

September 25, 1956. SINNETAMBY, J.-

In this case the plaintiff who was a tenant under Agreement D2 of 30/9/46 of the premises described therein as bearing Assessment No. 245, Sea Street, Negombo, sued his landlord, the defendant, for the recovery of excess rent over and above the standard rent of the premises for the period 1st August, 1949 to 31st December, 1951, aggregating to Rs. 1,544-25. According to the evidence the property let is about 21/2 or 3 acres in extent with a dwelling house standing on a site of about one rood in extent. The rest of the land is planted in coconuts. At the commencement of the tenancy the entire premises were let as one unit .and bore Assessment No. 245 which in 1948 was changed to No. 156. The premises were described in the Assessment Register P1 as " Tiled house and garden". In December, 1951 the premises were divided by the Municipality at the instance of the defendant into two parts and given two separate assessment numbers. The house described in P1 as " tiled house " was given No. 154 and the garden described in P1 as " garden " was given No. 156 as a separate entity, the Annual Value of Rs. 849 being apportioned between them as follows : Rs. 589 for the tiled house and Rs. 260 for the garden. By agreement of the parties defendant took over possession of the garden bearing Assessment No. 156 and the plaintiff continued in possession of the dwelling house.

The evidence discloses that the annual value in 1941 was Rs. 289 and it is not disputed that on this basis the standard rent would be Rs. 36-75 but the defendant has recovered at the rate of Rs. 90 per mensem : Rs. 53- 25 per month represents the excess rent paid. The -defendant however contends that the premises let consists of two parts represented now by the two portions bearing the assessment numbers 154 and 156 ; that there has been an apportionment of the rent between them ; and that it is only the portion where the house stands which is subject to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act and not the other. The argument in the trial Court proceeded on the basis that if the house and its immediate adjuncts are to be considered as a separate unit subject to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts and the garden another not subject to the Act in respect of which the landlord Could recover

any rent he pleases there would be no overpayment, and it is on this, basis that the learned trial judge based his decision. It is against this, finding that the present appeal has been preferred.

Ordinance No. 60 of 1942 [Rent Restriction Ordinance No. 60 of 1942] by which rent restriction was first introduced applied to all " premises" within certain proclaimed areas and the word is repeated