109-NLR-NLR-V-49-DAVITH-APPU-Appellant-and-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf
SS6
GRATIA KN J.—Davilh Appu v. The Attorney-General.
1948Present: Gratiaen J.
DAVITH APPU, Appellant, and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Respondent.
S. C. 243—C. R. Colombo, 220.
Rent Restriction Ordinance—Action for ejectment brought by Crown—Right notlimited by section 8, Ordinance No. 60 of 1942.
The right of the Crown to eject an overholding tenant of Crown propertyis not affected by the limitations placed on a landlord by section 8 ofthe Rent Restriction Ordinance.
A EPEAIi from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,■^•Colombo.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the defendant, appellant.
Tennekoon, Croton Counsel, for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. tmil.
May 27, 1948. Gratiaen J.—
The Attorney-General instituted this action against the appellant to-have him ejected from certain premises of which he was a monthly tenantof the Crown. The case proceeded to trial on various issues, and thelearned Commissioner of Requests entered judgment against the appellantas prayed for with costs.
The only ground on which it was sought to attack the judgmentappealed from was that the learned Commissioner had rejected certainobjections to the maintainability of the action for alleged non-compliancewith the provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, No. 60 of 1942.
Section 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance restricts to a considerableextent the common law right of a landlord to institute an action for theejectment of his tenant. If, therefore, the Crown were bound by the
Kanagalingam v. Kamalawathie.
367
provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance, the present action most fail,because it has not been contended that the Grown has satisfied any oftiie conditions laid down by the section. In my opinion, however, theCrown’s right to eject an overholding tenant of Crown property is notaffected by the limitations placed on other landlords by section 8 ofthe Rent Restriction Ordinance. The doctrine of the English Law thatno enactment shall in any way affect the right of the Crown unless it istherein expressly stated or unless it so appears by necessary implicationis part of the Statute Law of Ceylon. (Section 3 of the InterpretationOrdinance, Chapter 2.) The underlying principle is that the Legislatureis not presumed to have intended to deprive the Crown of anyprerogative, right or property unless it expresses its intention to do soin explicit terms or unless the inference is irresistible. (Maxwell on theInterpretation of Statutes, 8th Edition, page 120.) It has been heldthat the Rent Restriction Acts of England do not bind the Crown.Clark v. Downes1 and Wirral v. Shaw*. Learned Counsel for the appellantsubmitted that there are essential differences in language between tholocal Ordinance and the English Acts, and that these decisions can bedistinguished for this reason. I regret that I can find nothing in thelocal Ordinance from which one can be drawn irresistibly to the conclusionthat the Crown was intended by the Legislature to be bound by theprovisions of section'8. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.