023-NLR-NLR-V-77-Mrs.-V.-M.-GUNASEKERA-Appellant-and-G.-A.-SOMAPALA-Respondent.pdf
Gunaaekera v. Somapala
141
Present: Wijesundera, J., and Tittawella, J.
Mrs. V. M. GUNASEKERA, Appellant, and G. A. SOMAPALA,
Respondent
S. C. 90/72—C. R. Colombo, 2440/R.E.
Rent Act No. 7 of 1972—Section 22 (3)—No retrospective operation.
Section 22 (3) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 has no retrospectiveoperation and does not therefore apply to actions instituted priorto the date when that Act came into force.
142
TITTAWELLA, J.—Ounasekera v. Somapata
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
R. P. Goonetilleke, for the plaintiff-appellant.Defendant-respondent absent and unrepresented.
Cut. adv. vult.
March 25, 1974. Tittawella, J.—
This is an action for rent and ejectment instituted on 16.3.71under the Rent Restriction Act (Chapter 274 of the LegislativeEnactments). The Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 enacted on 1.3.72repealed the Rent Restriction Act (Chapter 274), and thequestion that arises is whether the plaintiff can maintain thisaction in view of the provisions of section 22 (3) of the Rent ActNo. 7 of 1972. The learned Commissioner of Requests tried thematter as a preliminary issue and dismissed the plaintiff’s actionholding that it cannot be maintained in view of the section ofthe Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 referred to at above. The plaintiff-appellant has appealed against this order.
The submission of Counsel for the Appellant is that section22(3) of the Rent Act has no retrospective operation and doesnot have any application to actions instituted prior to 1.3.72.This same matter has been argued before Rajaratnam J. in thecase of Kanagasabai v. Kamala Seevaratnam1—S.C. 9/70 (RE),
R., Colombo 99288 (S.C. Minutes of 6.11.73). He has held thatsection 22(3) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 has no retrospectiveoperation and does not therefore apply to actions institutedbefore the enactment of the new Rent Act. I am in respectfulagreement with his reasons and conclusions. This appeal musttherefore be allowed. The case will now go back for trial onany other issues that may be raised.
There shall be no costs of this appeal.
Wijesundera, J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.
* (1973) 76 N. L. R. 517.