Back
ADAMJEE LUKMANJEE & SONS LTD v. PONNIAH PILLAI
NLR61V181
1959 Present:
Basnayake, C.J.
ADAMJEE LUKMANJEE & SONS, LTD., Appellant, and A. PONNIAH
PILLAI, Respondent
S. C. 73-C. R. Colombo, 66,760
Landlord
and tenant-Monthly tenancy-Date when rent must be paid-Rent Restriction Act, No.
29 of 1948-Section 13 (a)-Arrears of rent-Practice of landlord to accept late
payments of rent-Effect on right of landlord to eject tenant-Prevention of
Frauds Ordinance, s. 2.
In the case of a monthly tenancy the rent must be paid monthly either at the
beginning of the month, when there is a stipulation to that effect, or at the
end of it, when there is no stipulation that the rent should be paid in advance.
For the purpose of section 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of
1948, a tenant would be liable to be ejected if the rent is in arrear for one
month after the due date, although it has been the practice for the landlord to
accept the rent once in several months.
Suppiah v. Kandiah (1957) 58 N. L. R. 479, not followed.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Court of Requests,
Colombo.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with B. S. C Ratwatte, for Plaintiff- Appellant.
Clarence de Silva, with R. D. B. Jayasekera, for Defendant-Respondent.
April 24, 1959. BASNAYAKE, C.J.-
The plaintiff is a limited liability company which owns a number of houses
in a place known as Lukmanjee Square. The defendant has been a tenant for a
number of years in house No. 14 owned by the plaintiff in that Square. The
monthly rent was Rs. 25/28. It would appear from documents P1 to P1 that the
defendant did not pay his rent monthly, but had got into the habit of paying the
overdue rent once in three or four months, whenever reminded by the plaintiff
that he was in arrear. From October 1951 till November 1955 the plaintiff had
from time to time sent eleven notices drawing the attention of the defendant to
the fact that he was in arrear. The plaintiff seeks to come within the ambit of
proviso (a) of section 13 (I) of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, which
enables a landlord, without the authorisation of the Board, to institute an
action for the ejectment of a tenant, where the rent has been in arrear for one
month after it has become due. The plaintiff states that the defendant had been
in arrear in respect of the rent for each of the months April, May, June, August
and September 1956 for more than a month after it became due. The overdue rent
was paid after the notice terminating the contract of tenancy was given. The
defendant claimed that the rent was payable by him not monthly, but at irregular
intervals; once in three or four months or even once a year. The Secretary and
Accountant of the plaintiff stated that under the contract of tenancy the
defendant was obliged to pay rent every month at the plaintiff's office at
Grandpass, but that though the defendant was irregular in his payments, the
plaintiff was indulgent, and sent reminders to him to pay the rent whenever it
fell into arrear.
The learned trial Judge seems to have wrongly inferred that there was no
obligation to pay rent monthly from the fact that the plaintiff was indulgent
and permitted the defendant to fall into arrear and pay his rent whenever
demanded. It is not denied that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy, and in the
case of a monthly tenancy the rent must be paid monthly either at the beginning
of the month, when there is a stipulation to that effect, or at the end of it,
where payment of rent in advance is not stipulated. In the instant case there
was no stipulation that the rent should be paid in advance; the defendant was
therefore in law bound to pay the rent immediately upon the termination of each
month (Pothier, Letting and Hiring, Part III s. 134 p. 55, Mulligan's
Translation). Admittedly he did not do so and was therefore in arrear for one
month after the rent had become due. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to
bring this action
