064-NLR-NLR-V-71-M.-A.-S.-M.-CASSIM-Appellant-and-L.-THIAGARAJAH-Respondent.pdf
SLRIMANE, J.—Caesim v. Thiagarajdh
279
1968Present: Slrimane, J., and Samerawlckrame, J.M. A. S. M. CASSIM, Appellant, and L. THIAGARAJAH, '
Respondent
8. C. 291/66—D. C. Matale, 1958/M. R.
Sent Restriction Act (Cap. 274)—Section 13 (1A)—Action thereunder—Rent in arrearJar one month after it hag become due—Requirement of 3 months' notice to quit—Civil Procedure Code, e. 46 (2) (i).
* m x
Where a tenant occupying premises to which section 13 (1A) of the RentRestriction Act is applicable is in arrear of rent for one month after it hasbecome due, an action to eject him is barred unless he has been given threemonths’ notice of termination of the tenancy.
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Matale.
M. 8. M. Nazeem,with N. R. M. DaluwaJtte and 8. K. H. Wijetilaka,for the defendant-appellant.
Ranganaikan, Q.C., with' Nihal Jayauncbrame, for the plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 20, 1968. Sibimane, J.—.
The main point urged at the hearing of this appeal was that the noticeterminating the defendant’s tenancy was bad in law.
280
SIRIMANE, J.—Cassim v. Thiagarajah
The plaintiff gave the defendant a month’s notice to quit by letterdated 26.4.65. It was argued for the defendant that according to thelaw as it stood on the date on which the action was filed, he was entitledto three months' notice, within which period he could tender any arrears ofrent due.
Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, Chapter 274 (hereinafterreferred to as the main Act) sets out the different grounds on which a land-lord could seek to eject his tenant. One of these grounds was that therent was in arrear for one month after it had become due. The principalAct did not provide any particular period of time for a valid terminationof the tenancy. So, a month’s notice was given to the tenant under thecommon law.
By an amendment to section 13 of the principal Act [section 13 (1 A)]introduced by section 6 of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 10of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) a landlord was notentitled to institute an action for ejectment, on the ground that rent hadbeen in arrear for one month after it has become due, unless he had giventhe tenant three months’ notice of termination of tenancy, and unless thetenant had failed to tender all arrears of rent within the period specifiedin such notice.
Section 13 of the Amending Act enacted a temporary law to be inoperation for a period of two years commencing from 20.7.60 noturith-standing anything in the principal Act. This law provided that theright of a landlord to institute an action for ejectment on the groundof arrears of rent was restricted to those cases where the tenant was inarrears for three months.
The period of three months required for the termination of tenancywas not part of the temporary law, so that during this period of two years,though a landlord could not come into Court unless the tenant was inarrears of rent for three months, yet, the tenancy could be terminatedwith a month’s notice. This was pointed out, by H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.in Abdul Rahuman v. Abdul Coder and that decision was followed by aBench of two judges in SeUathurai v. Fernando2.
The present action was instituted on 23.9.65, i.e. after the period duringwhich the temporary law was in operation had elapsed.
The tenant, therefore, was entitled to three months' notice of the termi-nation of the tenancy, within which period he could have tendered thearrears due.
In the course of his argument, Counsel for the defendant-appellantalso submitted that the action was “ null and void ” in view of section4 (1) of the Rent Restriction Amendment Act 12 of 1966. I am still ofthe view which I have expressed earlier that if the action had been filed
1 {1963) 67 N.L. R. 86.
* {J965) 68 N. L. R. 454.
Ariyaainghe v. Attorney-General
281
on a ground on which the institution of an action was permitted bysection 12 (a) introduced by that very Act, then such action would notbe null and void.
It is, however, unnecessary to discuss in any detail the impact of thatamendment on the facts of the present case, as I am in respectfulagreement with the view expressed by my brother Samerawickrame inRatnam v. Dheen1 where the facts were very similar ; that is to say,—on the date this action was filed there was a positive rule of law [section13 (1A) referred to above] which barred the filing of the action unless thetenant had been given three months' notice of termination of tenancy.
On the face of the plaint, which averred that only a month's noticehad been given, the action was barred and the plaint should have beenrejected under section 46 (2) (i) of the Civil Procedure Code.
The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's action dismissed with costsboth here and below.
Samebawickbame, J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.