055-NLR-NLR-V-70-M.-SEYED-MOHAMED-Appellant-and-M.-H.-M.-MEERA-PILLAI-Respondent.pdf
237
SAMJjRA W1CKRAM E, J.—Seyed Mohamed v. Afeera Pillai
1967Present: Samerawickrame, J.
M. SEYED MOHAMED, Appellant, and M. H. M. MEERA PILLAI,
Respondent
S. C. 19/66—C. R. Colombo, 87093/R.E.
Rent Restriction Act—Section 9^-Sub-letting—-Qiiardum of evidence.
The question was whether the defendant had, in contravention of section9 of the Rent Restriction Act, Bub-let a part of the promises rented to him bythe plaintiff. The evidence disclosed that one A. C. was in solo and exclusiveoccupation of a room of the premises and that ho carried on business in thatroom. The defendant took up the position that no ront was paid to him byA. C. and that the latter had been let into occupation of the room beforethe dofendant became the tenant of the premises.
Held, that, in the absence of acceptable evidence to explain A. C.’soccupation, the only inference was that A. C. was in occupation as asub-tonant paying rent to the defendant.
Held further, that, where sub-letting is continued, there is a continuedbreach by the tenant of the statutory provision against sub-letting.
-A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
Ranganathan, Q.C., with K. N. ChoJcsy and L. A. T. Williams, for
defendant-appellant.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with M. S. M. Nazeem, for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 15, 1967. Samerawickrame, J.—
The learned Commissioner of Requests has entered decree for ejectmentof the defendant-appellant on the ground that he has sub-let a part of thepremises in suit, No. 82, Messenger Street, Colombo, to one Abdul Cader.
238
SAMERAW1CKRAME, J.—Seyed Mohamed r. Me.tra Pillat
The greater part of his judgment deals with the question whether thepremises were reasonably required by the plaintiff-respondent. On thatpoint, he held against the plaintiff-respondent. There is no carefulexamination and analysis of the evidence touching the question of sub-letting. It is necessary, therefore, to examine that evidence.
The plaintiff-respondent produced documents P2 to P5 which are thecertificates of registration of a business called the Happy Flower BrassiereCo. They indicate that Abdul Cader was carrying on the business of amanufacturer of brassieres and garments in the premises in suit for someperiod by himself, and during other periods in partnership with another.These documents also show that the usual residence of Abdul Cader wasnot in these premises but in 81, Messenger Street. The Surveyor who wascalled by the plaintiff-respondent has spoken to the fact that the businessof Happy Flower Brassiere Co., was carried on in a room marked lot 7 inhis plan and that in that room there were three sewing machines and threegirls working. Abdul Cader has given evidence for the defendant andfrom his evidence it appears that he commenced business in partnershipwith one Sumanawathie at Welikada and as his business improved, hedecided to move closer to Pettah. He obtained the room at No. 82,Messenger Street, from one Hamid who was a relation of his and he had inthat room three sewing machines, three employees working there, awriting table and a chair. He stated that the profits from his business isabout Rs. 2,500 an year and that was net profit. He said that he gotorders from Pettah, Maradana, Borella, Fort and sometimes from thevVellawatte and Dehiwela areas and that he went in search of orders duringthe daytime as well as in the night. He admitted that it was essential forhis business to go out during the daytime in search of orders and that hedid go to the Pettah bazaar two days in the week. He denied, however,that he paid any rent and stated that he was allowed to occupy a room andcarry on business there rent free because he was looking after the goodsof the defendant that were stored in the premises.
The defendant too took up the position that no rent was paid by AbdulCader but that he was permitted to occupy the room that has beendepicted as lot 7 in the plan in the premises in consideration of his lookingafter his goods that were stored in premises No. 82, Messenger Street.At a certain point of his cross-examination, the defendant denied thatAbdul Cader was a watcher and in answer to a question whether the roomwas given to Abdul Cader to safeguard the goods that the defendantwas storing in the premises replied, “ he was doing his own business inthat room ”. It appears to me that the position taken up by the defendantis not in accordance with fact and has been put forward merely to meetthe case for the plaintiff. The evidence discloses that Abdul Cader wasin sole and exclusive occupation of a room at No. 82, Messenger Street,and that he carried on business in that room. In the absence ofacceptable evidence to explain his occupation, the only inference is thathe is in occupation as a sub-tenant of the defendant and on payment ofrent to him.
W alar aka. Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Wickremachandra
230
Mr. Ranganathan for the defendant-appellant further submitted thatin any event the evidence showed that Abdul Cader had been let intooccupation of the room before the defendant became the tenant of thepremises. He relied on a dictum of Manicavasagar J. in the case ofFernando v. de Silva1 to the effect that in the case of a monthlytenancy, once a tenant is let into occupation, the tenancy runs frommonth to month until it is terminated by a month’s notice. Heaccordingly submitted that there has been no sub-letting by the defend-ant and that no right to ejectment in terms of Section 9 of the RentRestriction Act had accrued to the plaintiff. Sansoni J. has, however,in the case of Kalandankutty v. Wanasinghe2 held that where thesub-letting is continued, there is a continued breach by the tenantof the statutory provision against sub-letting.
I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the learned Commissionerdecreeing ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he has sub-letpart of the premises to Abdul Cader is justified. The appeal is dismissedwith costs.
Appeal dismissed.