Sabapathipillai V. Ramupillai

1956 Present: Pulle, J., and Weerasooriya, J.

SABAPATHIPILLAI, Appellant, and RAMUPILLAI, Respondent

S. C. 551-D. C. Vavuniya, 1,120

Landlord and tenant-Informal lease bond-Its effect as contract of monthly tenancy- Sale of leased premises-Right of purchaser to sue tenant for rent-Attornment,

When a person is in occupation of land as lessee under an informal document which does not comply with the provisions of section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance, the lease must be regarded as from month to month and not for any longer period stated in the document.

When leased premises have been sold by the landlord, the tenant who receives notice of the purchaser's election to recognise him as tenant is not entitled to deny his attornment to the purchaser if be continues to be in occupation without informing the purchaser that he does not elect to attorn to him.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Vavuniya.

T. Arulanandam, with S. Sharvananda, for the defendant-appellant.

No appearance for the plaintiff-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 16, 1956. WEERASOORIYA, J.-

The plaintiff-respondent brought this action against the defendant-appellant for a declaration of title to a paddy land called Puliyadikani more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff based his title to it on deed of sale P1 dated the 1st December, 1951, by which one Ulaganathan conveyed it to him. Ulaganathan had previously on an informal document D6 dated the 13th May, 1950, leased the same land to the appellant for a period of five years, and at the time of the execution of P1 the appellant was in occupation of the land as lessee under Ulaganathan.

Although one of the causes of action set out in the plaint was the appellant's denial of the respondent's title to the land, the finding of the trial Judge that the respondent is the owner was not canvassed by Mr. Sharvananda who appeared for the appellant at the hearing before us. He confined the appeal to grounds (6), (8) and (10) of paragraph five of the petition of appeal the relevant portions of which read, as follows:-

(6) " The learned District Judge holds that the defendant-appellant paid to M. "Ulaganathan (the defendant-appellant's lessor) the

rent for the cultivation year 1952 to 1953 (Issue 20). Yet he holds that the defendant-appellant is liable to pay damage to the plaintiff-respondent for that period also ".

(8) " The learned District Judge erred in law in awarding damages to the plaintiff-respondent for the Kalapokam season 1953-1954 when admittedly the land was not cultivated by him ".
 
(10) " The tenancy created by D6 has not been lawfully terminated by due notice nor has there been any attornment of any contract by the defendant-appellant ".

In order to arrive at a finding on these grounds it becomes necessary to consider the respective rights and obligations of the appellant, as the lessee on D6, and the respondent who became the purchaser of the leased land while the lease was in operation. As the document D6 does not comply with the provisions of Section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance (Cap. 57) the lease must be regarded as from month to month, and not for the five years stated in D6, Ukkuwa v. Fernando [(1936) 38 N. L. R. 125.]. The position of a purchaser to whom the original landlord has sold the premises which, at the date of sale, are in the occupation of a tenant under an existing lease has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court. In the case of Allis v. Sigera [(1897) 3 N. L. R. 5.] it was held by Withers J. (sitting alone) that where a land which was subject to a lease was sold the purchaser acquired the right to the payment by the lessee of the rent due under the lease and could sue him for the same provided the latter had notice of the sale. It is not clear from the judgment, however, whether the decision implies that the tenant is bound to c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document