006-NLR-NLR-V-57-DEVASAGAYAM-Appellant-and-AZEEZ-Respondent.pdf
Present : Pulle J.
DEVASAGAYAM, Appellant, and AZEEZ, RespondentS. C. 155—C. R. Colombo, 42,413
Jurisdiction—Action for damages and ejectment—Defendant's false pica of tenancy—Determination of-value of subject-matter of action—Dower of Court to examinenot only plaintiff's claim but also defendant's answer.
In order to ascertain whether an action is within or beyond tho pecuniaryjurisdiction of a court it may bo necessary to examine not only the plaintiff'sclaim but also tho defendant’s answer to it.
Plaint iff instituted action in tho Court of Requests praying for damages andnn order of ejectment against the defendant in respect oT certain promiseswhich were of the value of over Its. 300. The defendant pleaded that lie wastenant under the plaintiff and, in tho alternative, that tho court had no juris-diction to try tho action as tho value of tho subject -matter of tho action exceededIt?. 300. The Commissionci rejected the defence of tenancy as falsa and gr.vojudgment for the plaintiff.
Held, that as tho substanco of the dispute was whether tho defendant was ntenant render tho plaintiff or a bare licenseo tlio Court of Requests hadjurisdiction to try the action.
j^fkPPEAXi from a. judgment of tho Court of Requests, Colombo.
Renganatlian, with II. C. Kirlhisinghe, for the defendant appellant.
’ J/. Ramcilingam, with B. B. de Silva, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
•July 19, 1954. Pclle J.—
The action which gives rise to this appeal was instituted by the tenantof premises No. 2S7a, Old Moor Street-. Ho alleged that- at the time howent into occupation ho found that the defendant apjicllant, who washimself a tenant and occupier of the neighbouring premises bearingNo. 2S5, had placed a part of his stock in trade in the rear compoundof premises No. 2S7a. Ho prayed for damages and an order of ejectmentagainst the defendant. The position taken up by the defendant wasthat he occupied the portion in disputo as a sub-tenant of the personwho was the previous tenant of premises No. 2S7a and that when theplaintiff went into occupation the defendant- entered into an expressagreement with him to occupy that same portion as a tenant on a monthlyrental of Ks. 10. He pleaded in the alternative that the court had nojurisdiction to try the action as the value of the portion exceeded Its. 300.
The learned Commissioner rejected the defence of sub-tenancy asfalse and gave judgment for the plaintiff. He apparently accepted theevidence of the plaintiff and of his brother, who was the previous tenant.That evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff's brother permitted thedefendant to store his goods on payment of Its. 10 a month and that atthe time lie terminated his own tenancy the defendant removed the goodsand ho thereupon gave vacant possession to his landlord. The Commis-sioner further found that before the plaintiff could under his agreement-with the owner take possession of the entirety of premises No. 2S7a thedefendant again moved into the disputed portion with his goods.
When the plaintiff took possession of the premises, including the rearcompound, the defendant promised to move out- in a week’s time. Thispermission was granted but the defendant did not keep his word. Helater wanted a sub-tenancy and this was refused. It is beyond all disputethat the plaintiff did not want to have the defendant as a sub-tenant.
The 011I3- point taken on bclialf of the defendant at the argument inappeal was that the value of the portion of the rear compound in whichthe goods were stored being of the value of over Rs. 300 the Court ofRccjuests had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. It was submitted011 the authority of Bastion Appuhamy v. Haramanis Appuhamy1 thatthe action being one involving the right to possession of land, it- wasimmaterial in what- capacity the plaintiff sought possession. The modeof valuation of the subject-matter of actions of this kind had been debatedin several cases and the Divisional Bench in Bast tan Appuhamy v.Haramanis Appuhamy 1 after reviewing them cxpressc-cl approval of c-aseslike Lehbe v. Banda – and Laidohamy v. Goonclilleke3. The learnedCommissioner answered the issue of jurisdiction against the defendantby directing himself on the lines indicated in the judgment of theDivisional Bench r, namely,
“ In order, therefore, to ascertain whether an action is within orbeyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court, the nature and extentof the subject-matter in dispute has to be ascertained, and for thatpurpose, it would be necessary to examine not only the plaintiff sclaim but also the defendant’s answer to it. ”
» (IOJ.J) 40 -V. L. It. oOj ; 31 O. L. ir. 33.5 (191S) 20 -V. L. It. 343.
*(1913) o Bui. N. C. 14.
The defendant <lid not set up an independent c-Iaim cither againsttho minor who gavo the premises to t-ho plaintiff or against the plaintiffby virtue of an earlier contract of tenancy with the owner implementedby possession. Ho pleaded a tenancy under tho plaintiff himsolf and,having regard to tho evidence, tho substaneo of the dispute was whethertho defendant was a tenant under tho plaintiff or a bare licensee. Accord-ing to tho evidonco which has been accepted tho defendant soughtfrom being a licensee to become a tenant but tho plaintiff refusod to accedeto his request. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s right toevict him and askod for time to leave. "When the time arrived to leaveho asked to become a tenant and tho plaintiff doclined. The learnedCommissioner was, therefore, right in holding that tho value of the actionwas about Rs. 10 and not tho market value of tho disputed portion whichwas over Rs. 300.
dismiss the apjjeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.