103-NLR-NLR-V-54-D.-G.-A.-ARIYARATNE-Appellant-and-L.-H.-A-DE-SILVA-Respondent.pdf
Ariyaratne v. Da Silva
431
1953
Present : Swan J.
D. G. A. ARIYAR ATNE, Appellant, and L. H. A. DE SILVA,
Respondent
S. C. 204—G. R. Guile, 28,275
Rent Restriction Act, .Vo. 29 of 194S—Section 13 (3)—Construction.
Where a landlord has obtained an order of ejectment against his tenant on theground that the premises in question are reasonably required for 3jj^ose andoccupation, the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Rent Restriction ^Act re-quiring him to enter into occupation within a month do not preclude ti™ frommaking alterations and improvements to suit his needs.
Ar
PEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Galle.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with M. H. A. Aziz and S. H. Mohamed, for thedefendant appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, Q.C., with H. W. Jayeivardene and W. D. Gunase-kera, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. milt.
1 (19-51) 52 N. D. R. 380.* (1946) 47 N. L. R. 45.
432
SWAN J.—Ariyaratne v. De Silva
March 25, 1953. Swan J.—
The only issue in this case was whether the premises in suit were rea-sonably required for the use and occupation of the plaintiff. This issuewas answered by the learned Commissioner in the plaintiff’s favour ; and,on the evidence I do not think he could have held otherwise. The chiefpoint taken by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff wasnot entitled to an order of ejectment inasmuch as he intended to pulldown the building and erect another in its place. One could hardly callit demolition and reconstruction, because the plan filed shows only altera-tions to the existing building, may be of an extensive nature. Mr. Perera’scontention is that a landlord must preserve the “ structural integrity ”,if one may use that expression, of the premises. This contentionis based on Section 13 (3) of the Rent Restriction Act which provides that,if a landlord who has obtained a decree in ejectment or the member ofwhose family for whose benefit the decree has been granted does not enterinto occupation within a month, or having entered into occupation vacatedthe premises without reasonable cause within a year the former tenantcouLd apply to be restored to possession. J. do not think that this provisionmeans that the landlord cannot alter and improve the premises to suit bisneeds. It is merely a safeguard against the obtaining of a decree in eject-ment under false pretences of reasonable requirement. That end is pri-marily secured by Section 13 (2) which requires the Court to direct in thedecree that no person other than the landlord or the member of his family,whose name must be specified in the decree, shall enter into occupationof the premises upon the vacation thereof by the tenant or upon theejectment therefrom of the tenant.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.