038-NLR-NLR-V-52-WIMALASURIYA-Appellant-and-PONNIAH-Respondent.pdf
1951Present: Basnayake J.WIMAXiASURIYA, Appellant, and PONNIAH, RespondentS. C. 167—C. E. Gampola, 8,471
Rent Restriction Act—SuO-section of premises—Right of landlord to sue tenant withoutgiving notice—Act No. 29 of 1948, Section. 9 (2).
"Where a, tenant sub-lets the leased premises in contravention of section 9 of theSent Restriction Act, ISTo. 29 of 1948, the landlord is entitled to instituteproceedings in ejectment without terminating the tenancy by notice.
A PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Gampola.
H. TV. Jayewardene, with D. R. P. Goonetilelce, for the plaintiff appellant,Vernon Wvjetunge, for the defendant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 24, 1951. Basnayake J.—
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an action for ejectment of the-defendant from premises Nh. 69, [Malabar Street, Gampola. The plaintiffalleges that the defendant in contravention of section 9 of the. RentRestriction Act, No. 29 of 1948, sub-let the premises, and he claims theright to eject the defendant by virtue of section 9 (2) of that Act.
The action was fought on the ground that the plaintiff has not ter-minated the contract of tenancy by giving the requisite notice and thathe is not entitled to institute proceedings in ejeetment under section 9without first terminating the contract.•
The learned Commissioner has upheld the objection of the defendant anddismissed the plaintiff’s action.•
Tile question that arises for consideration is whether a landlord beforeinstituting, under the right given to him by section 9 of the Bent Bes-trietion Act, No. 29 of 1948, an action for the ejectment of a tenant whowithout his prior consent in writing has sub-let the leased premises orany part of it, is bound to terminate the tenancy by giving him reasonablenotice according to the terms of the contract of tenancy. Beamed counselfor the appellant contends that section 9 creates a new right not known tothe common law and that a landlord is entitled to institute an actionin ejectment under. that section without terminating the tenancy bynotice. The relevant portion of section 9 of the Bent Bestriction Act,No. 29 of 1948, reads :
<i
“ (1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law, but subject to anyprovision to the contrary in any written contract or agreement, thetenant of any premises to which this Act applies shall not, without theprior consent in writing of the landlord, sub-let the premises or anypart thereof to any other person.
“ (2) Where any premises or any part thereof is sub-let in contra-vention of the provisions of sub-section (1) the landlord shall, not-withstanding the provisions of section 13, be entitled in an action insti-tuted in a court of competent jurisdiction to a decree for the ejectmentfrom the premises of his tenant and of the person or each of thepersons to whom the premises or any part thereof has been so sub-let.”
Under the common law the landlord in entitled to institute proceedingsin ejectment against a tenant who remains in the leased property after thetermination of the lease. A lease terminates either by effluxion of time orby notice of termination where a lease is terminable on notice. Wherethere is no express agreement to the contrary a tenant may under our lawsub-let an urban tenement. The act of sub-letting by a tenant of an urbantenement does not give the landlord the right to cancel the lease and ask forpossession of the premises. It cannot therefore be said that the landlordis obliged by the common law to give notice before exercising his statu-tory right under section 9 of the Act. Nor does the statute impose anyobligation on him to give notice before proceeding thereunder. A noticeof cancellation of the contract of tenancy need not under our law precedeevery action in ejectment. A cancellation need be made only in a casewhere without such cancellation the landlord is not under the terms of thelease entitled to demand the surrender of the premises.■
The legislature is presumed to know the law and it can safely be assumedthat if it intended that notice should be given before the institution oflegal proceedings under section 9 it would have provided for it by expressenactment, especially as it was conferring by statute a right which thelandlord does not have under the common law.
I am therefore of opinion that the present action is maintainable.The appeal is allowed with costs here and in the court below.
t
Appeal allowed.