Property owner’s ejection claim dismissed by Court for non-compliance with new Lease Act

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda 

A case filed by a lessor (the property owner) seeking an order to eject a lessee (tenant) for wrongful occupation has been dismissed by the Kaduwela District Court as it did not comply with the new Lease Act introduced in 2023. 

This judgment was delivered by Kaduwela District Court Judge Dulani Weerathunga.

The Recovery of Possession of Premises Given on Lease Act No. 01 of 2023 primarily governs the practical application and emphasizes the significance of safeguarding the legal and binding rights of both the lessor and lessee under a lease agreement.

This case has been filed in the Kaduwela District Court against the defendant who is the lessee seeking an order for ejectment and damages of wrongful occupation against the defendant and to evict him from the said premises and claiming compensation of Rs. 3 million for overholding the lease period.

Accordingly, Senior Counsel Ian Fernando with Malsha Wijerathna and Nirmal Perera instructed by Derek Fernando Associates representing Darshan Jayanetti, a former chairman of State Plantation Corporation who is the defendant lessee submitted to get leave from court to file an answer in the said case. The plaintiff was represented by Counsel Asha Ratnayake on the instructions of Erandi Hadunge.

In order to recover possession of the said premises, under Act No.01 of 2023 which deviates from the general law which is a special law to expedite the eviction of the lessee by the lessor, if the court finds the facts of the plaintiff’s complaint satisfactory, it will enter a declaration of intent in accordance with the Act’s formalities and make it available to the defendant. 

Otherwise, a defendant who submits an objection which is an adequate defense against the plaintiff’s leave is granted by the permission of the court to file an answer, and under that new provision of law, one needs to get leave from court through summary procedure. 

Decree Nisi will be entered in the first instance. Therefore, the defendant lessee has to satisfy the court with substantial grounds to grant leave by way of an answer.

Based on the subject matter of this case, as per the defendant’s counsel it was emphasized that the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the recovery of the property does not falling within the ambit of the law for the Recovery of Possession of Premises Given on Lease Act No.01 of 2023 which applied to recover the possession and damages of an over holding lessee. 

It was argued that the case cannot be pursued under these legal provisions, as the terms and conditions of the lease agreement have not been violated. It was alleged that the plaintiff has misrepresented facts to the court by providing inaccurate calculations and has attempted to unlawfully obtain a substantial sum of money. Furthermore, the request related to this demand is unjust and illegal. Therefore, the case should be dismissed at the first instance as it does not comply with the regulations that are laid down in the Recovery of Possession of Premises Given on Lease Act No.01 of 2023.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the Court upheld the stance of the defence counsel by rejecting the case and dismissed the case in favour of the defendant.