115-NLR-NLR-V-56-A.-CHELLIAH-Appellant-and-C.-M.-KADIRAVELU-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Cheliiah v. Kadiravelu
455
1955Present : Swan J.-•A. CHEBLIAH, Appellant, ami C. M. KADIRAVELU,Respondent
S. C. 26—C. R. Badulla, 14,204
Kent Iteslciction .-lei—Section 13—Tenant in arrears oj rent—Action in ejectment—Xolive, to tf nit is condition precedent.
Section 13 of the Heat Restriction Act clous not roiuler notice to quitunnecessary to determine a contract of tenancy where the tenant is in arrearsof rent.
,^V.PPEAL from a judgment of tlie Court of Requests, Badulla.
N. Klunutusintjhum, for the defendant appellant.
//. W. Tttmbiah, with H. de Silva, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. ado. vult.
May IP, 1955. Swan J.—
In this case the plaintiff-respondent sued the defendunt-appellant forarrears of rent and ejectment. In the plaint notice to quit was pleaded.It was specifically denied in tlie answer. Apparently at the commence-ment of the trial it was argued that no notice to quit was necessary forduring the course of tlie trial the following issue was raised by the proctorwho appeared for the defendant :—
Can the plaintiff maintain this action for ejectment in the absenceof notice to quit determining tenancy ?
At the trial no notice to quit was produced. The learned Commissionerentered judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for with costs, holding thatno notice to quit was necessary because the appellant was in arrears ofrent.
Mr. Kumarasingham argued that tenancy can only be determined bynotice to quit and that the Rent Restriction Act does not give the land-lord any greater rights if the tenant is in arrears of rent. His contentionwas that section 13 of the Act merely provides that no action in ejectmentc an be instituted unless the Rent Restriction Board had authorized suchan act i<m. There is a proviso to the section that the authorization ofthe Board is not necessary in certain cases, one of which is when the tenantis in arrears of rent.
Mr. Thamhiah uiaintained that the view taken by the learnedCommissioner was right. He relied on the judgment of Basnayake J.in the case of WiinaUtsuriya v. Ponniah '. His argument was that just as alandlord can sue a tenant in ejectment without notice to quit whero tho1 (1951) 5‘4 N, L. It. 191.
456SWAN J.—Ohettiah v. Kadiravelv,
tenant has sublet the premises in contravention of section 9 of the Act,the landlord can institute an action in ejectment where the tenant is inarrears of rent. Without expressing any opinion as to tho correctness orotherwise of the judgment in Wimalasuriya v. Ponniah 1 I think thatBection 13 only refers to circumstances when the authorization of thoBoard is unnecessary for the institution of an action in ejectment. I donot think it can be construed to mean that notice to quit is unnecessaryto determine a contract of tenancy where a tenant is in arrears of rent.
The appeal as far as the claim for ejectment is concerned is allowed.Decree will be entered for the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 210 and costsin the lower court. The defendant-appellant will be entitled to tho costsof appeal. The defendant-appellant will be given credit for any amountdeposited to the credit of this case as well as amounts paid to tho creditof Case No. 13650 C. R. Badulla on account of rent claimed in this action.
Appeal allowed. *
* (1951) 52 N. If. R. 191.