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

SENEVIRATNE v. PERERA


Seneviratne V. Perera

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















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