1962 Present: Weerasooriya, J.

SENEVIRATNE, Appellant, and PERERA, Respondent

S. C. 166-G. R. Colombo, 72808

Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 194S-Section 13 (1)-Action in respect of " excepted premises "-Effect when, pending the action, the premises are taken out of the category of " excepted premises "-" Proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant".

Where, at the time when an action is instituted by a landlord for the ejectment of his tenant, the premises in question are " excepted premises ", authorisation of the Board in terms of section 13 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act does not become subsequently necessary if, during the pendency of the action, the premises are taken out of the category of " excepted premises " by reason of the reduction of the annual value of the premises.

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

H. V. Perera, Q.C., with H. E. B. Cooray, for the defendant-appellant

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with R. Manikkavasagar and S. S. Basnayake for the plaintiff-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

510

January 17, 1962. WEERASOORIYA, J.-

This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Court of Requests, Colombo, dated the 14th December, 1960, ordering his ejectment from certain residential premises situated within the Municipality of Colombo of which he was the tenant linger the plaintiff. In entering judgment the Court also ordered that writ of ejectment should not issue until the 30th November, 1961. At the time of the institution of the action (on the 8th April; 1959) the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948 (Cap. 274) did not apply to the premises as they were " excepted premises " in that the annual value thereof was Rs. 2,240.

The trial took place on the 22nd November, 1960, and subsequent dates. Prior to that, and with effect from the 1st January, 1960, the annual value of the premises was reduced to Rs. 1,845. In the result, the premises were taken out of the category of " excepted premises " and the provisions of the Act became applicable to them. Section 13 (1) of the Act is as follows-" Notwithstanding anything in any other law, no action or proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant of any premises to which this Act applies shall be instituted in or entertained by any Court, unless the Board, on the application of the landlord, has in writing authorised the institution of such action or proceedings." Then comes a proviso under which the authorisation of the Board is declared not to be necessary in any of the cases mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proviso. Paragraph (c) enables judgment in ejectment of the tenant to be given if, inter alia, the premises are, in the opinion of the Court, reasonably required for occupation as a residence for the landlord or any member of his family. It may be stated that the operation of paragraph (c) has been temporarily suspended by section 13 (1) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 1961.

The present action for the ejectment of the defendant was instituted without obtaining the authorisation of the Board under section 13 (1). It is common ground that such authorisation was not required as the provisions of the Act were not then applicable to the premises. But Mr. H. V. Perera, who appeared for the defendant-appellant, submitted , that once the provisions of the Act became applicable to the premises (that is, from the 1st January, 1960) the subsequent trial, and also any steps that may be taken in Court in the execution of the decree, constitute " proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant " as contemplated in section 13 (1), and that in the absence of any authorisation by the Board under that section the Court is precluded from entertaining the proceedings except in a case falling within the proviso. It was on this ground alone that Mr. Perera asked that the judgment and decree appealed from