SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

H.N.G. FERNANDO, J
MACKEEN – Appellant
Versus
SALLIEH – Respondent


Advocates:
C. Thiagalingam, Q.C., with M. I. M. Cassim and T. Parathalingam.. for the defendant-appellant.
S. H. Mohamed, for the plaintiff-respondent.

Mackeen V. Sallieh

1956 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.

O. L. M. MACKEEN,

Appellant, and M. V. M. SALLIEH.
Respondent

S. C. 80-C. R. Colombo, 58,773

Reset Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948-Section 13-" Arrear of rent "Informal written agreement between landlord and tenant-Deposit of sum to cover last two months' rental-Should it be set off against any unpaid rent ?-Prevention of Frauds Ordinance.

A tenant would be in arrear of rent within the meaning of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act even if a small portion only of the rent due remains unpaid.

An informal written contract of monthly tenancy contained a recital that the tenant had deposited a certain sum of money to be taken as rent for the last two months "on the determination of the tenancy by consent or by process of law".

Held, that the landlord was not bound, even without a request of the tenant in that behalf, to apply the deposited sum in satisfaction of unpaid rent for any two month-s. It could not be contended that the provision in the agreement regarding the deposit of two months' rent was unlawful as being in breach of tile Prevention of Frauds Ordinance in that it purported to Stave the eff

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top