1959 Present: Basnayake, C.J.

KURUNERU, Appellant, and ALIM HADJIAR, Respondent.

S. C. 194-C. R. Batticaloa, 4962

    Contract- Right of contracting party to bind heirs and executors-Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948,s. 13 (c)-Notarial lease-Death of lessee-Right of executor to benefit of Act on expiry of lease.

Although the general rule is that a contract cannot bind a person who is not a party to it, a person may by contract not only bind himself but may also bind his heirs, executors and administrators.

Accordingly, where a lessee who enters into a notarial contract of lease not only for himself but also for his heirs, executors and administrators dies during the pendency of the lease, the executor is entitled to the benefit of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, on the expiry of the term of the lease.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Batticaloa.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with E. Gooneratne and L. C. Seneviratne, for Defendant-Appellant.

C. Renganathan, with S.C. Crossette-Thambiah and S. Sivarasa, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 29, 1959. BASNAYAKE, C.J.-

By an instrument of lease No. 458 executed on 6th July 1946 and attested by K. V. M. Subramaniam, Notary Public, the plaintiff Ahamadulevvai Mohamadu Cassim Alim Haji leased to Caesar Kuruneru his heirs, executors, and administrators, the land described in the school thereto for a period often years from 1st January 1947 at a yearly rental of Rs. 720 to be paid quarterly in advance. It was a condition of the lease that the lessee should pay the rates on the premises. Caesar Kuruneru died on 19th December 1953 while the lease was still current and the defendant, his brother, Dharmadasa Kuruneru, executor sole devisee of his business, continued to occupy the premises and carrying on the business which the deceased was carrying on at the time of death and pay the rent and discharge the other conditions of the lease.

When the term of the lease came to an end on 31st December 1956 defendant did not quit the premises, but continued to carry on business therein notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had asked him to quit and deliver possession thereof to him. On 16th February 1957 plaintiff instituted these proceedings for the ejectment of the defendant who was no longer the contractual tenant and for damages for wrong occupation after 1st January 1957. The plaintiff seeks to bring him within the ambit of section 13 (1)(c) of the Rent Restriction Act, No. of 1948, by alleging that the premises are reasonably required by members of his family to carry on business.

The main question that arises for decision in the instant case is whet the plaintiff is barred by section 13 of that Act from instituting this action for the ejectment of the defendant.

The deceased Kuruneru entered into the contract of lease not only himself but also for his heirs, executors, and administrators. The instrument which is carelessly drafted and is full of mistakes and does credit to the notary who attested it reads-

"The lessor doth hereby demise and let unto the lessee his hi executors and administrators all that land and premises more £1 described in the schedule hereto. To have and to hold the s premises unto the lessee his heirs executors and administrators for term of ten years from 1st January 1947.

????????????????????????????????????..
And the lessee doth hereby for himself and his heirs executors and administrators covenant with the lessor that the lessee his heirs executors and administrators during the said term will pay the yearly rent hereinbefore reserved on the days and in manner aforesaid.
????????????????????????????????????..

And the lessee for himself and his executors and administrator covenant and agree with the lessor that the premises shall not sub-let mortgage assign the said lease to a third party with the cons and approval of the lessee (lessor?).