119-NLR-NLR-V-70-M.-NAVAS-Appellant-and-A.-S.-MOHAMED-Respondent.pdf
570
Navas v. Mohamed
1968Present: Abeyesundere, J.
M. NAVAS, Appellant, and A. S. MOHAMED, RespondentS.C. 64/1967—C.R. Colombo, 85406
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966—Scope of section 4 (1) (c)—Averments of arrears of rent for more than 3 months and “ reasonable requirement"—•Consent decree—Interpretation—Rent Restriction Act, s. 12 A.
In this action falling under section 12A of the Rent Restriction Act (as amendedby section 2 of Act No. 12 of 1966), consent decree was entered recognizing thefact that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months. Anotherground averred in the plaint was that the premises were “reasonably required ”by the landlord. The terms of settlement provided for the payment of theamount of the arrears of rent by setting off against it the sum of Rs. 1000deposited as security by the tenant and the amount of the taxes paid by him.
Held, that section 4 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 12of 1966 could not present proceedings from being taken to enforce decree forejectmdht of the tenant.
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Navas v. Mohamed
571
-A-PPEAL from an order of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
Rangancdhan, Q.C., with A. Sivagurunathan, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
V. Thillainathan, for the Defendant-Respondent.
March 29, 1968. Abeyesttndere, J.—
This action was instituted by the plaintiff for the ejectment of thedefendant from the premises described in the plaint on the ground thatthe defendant was in arrears of rent for the period 1st June, 1960 to 30tfeJune, 1963 and also on the ground that those premises were reasonablyrequired for use and occupation as a residence by the plaintiff and hisfamily. Issue 1 relates to the first of those grounds and issue 2 relatesto the second of those grounds. The case was settled and decree wasentered in accordance with the terms of settlement. The plaintiff appliedfor the enforcement of the decree and the application was resisted by the*defendant on the ground that Section 4 (1) (c) of the Rent Restriction m(Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966, prevented proceedings from beingtaken for the enforcement of the decree. The learned Commissioner ofRequests by his order dated 7.3.67 has held that the decree cannot beenforced. The plaintiff has appealed from that order.
The learned Commissioner of Requests has stated in his order asfollows :
“ In view of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of Act No. 12 of 1966, Ihold that the decree entered in this case having been entered on thegrounds of reasonable requirement, which is not one of the groundsprovided for under Section 2, cannot be enforced and executionproceedings cannot be continued.”
Section 2 referred to by the learned Commissioner of Requests in thepassage quoted above is intended to refer to Section 12A inserted in theprincipal Act by Section 2 of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act,No. 12 of 1966. Section 12A prohibits the institution of an action for theejectment of a tenant of any premises to which the principal Act appliesand the standard rent of which for a month does not exceed Rs. 100 unlesswhere the ground on which ejectment is sought is one of the groundsspecified in that Section. The instant action was instituted on twogrounds and one of them was that the rent of the premises in suit was inarrears for more than three months. That ground is one of the groundsspecified in Section 12A. Admittedly the premises in suit are those towhich the Rent Restriction Act applies and the standard rent of whichfo£ a month does not exceed Rs. 100. Therefore Sqption 12A applies»tothe premises in suit.•
572
ABEYESTJNDERE, J.—Navas v. Mohamed
Section 4 of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, Np. 12 of 1966,deems to be null and void an action for the ejectment of a tenant fromany premises to which the Rent Restriction Act applies if that actionwas instituted on or after 20th July, 1962 and before 10th May, 1966(which is the date of commencement of Act No. 12 of 1966) and which waspending on 10th May, 1966. The instant action was instituted withinthe period specified in Section 4 and was also pending on 10th May,1966. The question that has to be determined is whether the provisionsof Section 4 of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1966apply to that action. It is correct that Section 4 does not expressly saveany action instituted within the period mentioned in that Section andpending on the date of commencement of the amending Act. Section12A was, by the very provisions of Section 4, brought into operationretrospectively with effect from 20th July, 1962, and it would be renderingthe provisions of Section 12A inoperative during the retrospective periodif Section 4 is interpreted to deem to be null and void an action institutedfor the ejectment of a tenant on any of the grounds specified in Section12A. This Court has already held in a number of other cases thatSection 4 of the amending Act does not apply to an action instituted for the.ejectment of a tenant on any of the grounds specified in Section 12A.Therefore the test as to whether paragraph (c) of Section 4 (1) of the RentRestriction (Amendment) Act, No. 12 of 1966, prevents the enforcementof the decree of consent entered in the instant action is whetherthe action was instituted on any of the grounds specified in Section 12A.Undoubtedly one of the grounds on which the action was instituted is aground stated in Section 12A. Therefore Section 4 of the amending Actdoes not apply to the instant action. The learned Commissioner ofRequests has misdirected himself in examining the decree in order todetermine whether or not Section 4 of the amending Act applies to theinstant action.
Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the decree of consententered in this action was bad as it was not entered on any of the groundson which an action for the ejectment of a tenant may be institutedunder the Rent Restriction Act. His submission is clearly wrong for thereason that the terms of settlement recognise the fact that the defendantwas in arrears of rent for more than three months and those terms providefor the payment of the amount of those arrears by setting off against itthe sum of Rs. 1000 deposited as security by the defendant and the amountof the taxes paid by" him. It is on the basis of that set off that the termsof settlement state that the defendant has paid rent and damages up to30th June, 1966.
For the aforesaid reasons 1 set aside the order appealed from and holdthat the decree entered in this action is enforceable. The appellant isentitled to the costs of the appeal.
• • •
Appeal allowed.