062-NLR-NLR-V-74-F.-A.-FELIX-SINGHO-Appellant-and-THE-URBAN-COUNCIL.-KALUTARA-Respondent.pdf
21
Felix Singho v. Urban Council, KalitUtrn
1970Present : Thamofberarn, J.
F. A. FELIX SINGITO, Appellant, and THE URBAN COUNCIL, -KALUTARA, RespondentS. C. lOJIGS—C.Ji. Kahtlara, 0250Rcnt-co’it rolled previses—" Sc nice tenant"—JJis right to protection oj HerdRestriction Act.
When nn employee occupies, os a tenant, rent-controlled premises owned byhis employer, he is a service tenant ar.d, tberoforo, is entitled to tho protectionof the Rent Restriction Act.
210
TH AM OTHER AM, J.—Felix Sinqho v. Urban Council, Kalutara
Appeal from a judgment of the Court- of Requests, Kalutara.
A*. <S. A. Ooonetilleke, for the defendant-appellant.
No appearance for the plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. villi.
.September 30, 1970. ,-Thamotheram, J.-—
The Urban Council of Kalutara (Plaintiff-Respondent) filed an actionagainst the Defendant-Appellant to have him ejected from premisesbearing No. 2 (39B), Park House. Kalutara South, belonging to the counciland to recover damages.
The follou'ing grounds acre admitted at the trial. The plaintiff,respondent is the landlord and the defendant-appellant is the tenant ofthe premises in question. The plaintiff had terminated the tenancy bynotice dated 10.2.67. The premises we re situated in an area whereinthe Rent Restriction Act was in operation. The plaintiff-respondenthad not- established that the premises were excepted promises.
Tho learned Judge having found all those matters in favour of theappellant should have dismissod tho plaintiff-rospondonfc’s action. Insteadho said ‘ it is quito clear that tho defendant has boon in occupation oft-hoso promises as an onijikyoo of tho Plaintiff-Council. Thon tho question'is whothor tho defondant can saok tho konofit of tho Ront RestrictionAct and resist this action of tho plaintiff for ojoctmcnt. I do not 1hinkT nood labour this point- much and I think it is siifhciont to rofor to Mogarryon tho Ront Acts (9th Edition, pago 52) whoro it cloals with sorvico occupiorat pago 53. Ho montions in particular to cortnin occupjors who cannotlako protectioji under tho Ront Acts. In that catogorv of pooplo areincluded pooplc liko tho defendant
ft is quito ctoar that the lonrnod ..fudge has misd/roefod himself on-this point. Mogarrv says at- pago til (10th hdition) . . if a sorvantoccupies premisos ownod by his master he may do so as a servicetonant, service occupior or a licensee. If ho is a sorvico tenant ho holdsa tmo tenancy protoctod by tho Ront Acts.'
Once touam-v is admiiiod tho fact that the lonaut- is also an employeecan only niako him a sorvico tenant.
•Judgmont and docroo are set aside and the plnintik's action isdismisso*.with costs in both courts.
Appeal allowed.