Law and Citizen

The rent issue

Dr.C.Ananda Grero

Under the provisions of the Rent Act, " rent" plays an important part. Rent should be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act at the proper time or the tenant falls into arrears and it becomes grounds for the landlord to eject the tenant from the premises.

Usually the tenant pays the rent directly to the landlord or to his authorized person. Some tenants post the rent to the landlord as agreed between the two parties. However, the Rent Act provides another way of paying the rent. Section 21 of the said Act states that, the tenant may pay the rent of the premlses to the authorized person, instead of the landlord.

This "authorized person" is also being described in the Act. Section 21(4) of the Rent Act states, that in this section "authorized person" means, the Mayor or Chairman of the local authority within whose administrative limits the premises are situated or the person authorized in writing by such Mayor or Chairman to receive rents paid under this section, or where the Minister so determines, the board of the area within which the premises are situated

This is a special provision available under the Rent Act with regard to the payment of rent. Where the Rent Act does not apply, a tenant cannot pay the rent to the Mayor or Chairman of a local authority and such rent should be paid in a manner agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant.

A certain premises had been given on rent by landlord citizen Don Alwis to tenant citizen Almeida on a rent of Rs. 50/- to be paid monthly. These premises are situated within the Matara Urban Council limits. Citizen Don Alwis died after sometime and his son citizen Wilson Alwis became the new landlord.

After sometime the landlord instituted an action against the tenant in the District Court of Matara on the ground that citizen Almeida has fallen into arrears of rent for a period of well over three months. The defendant tenant, filed answer stating that he deposited the rent at the Urban Council, Matara and accordingly he was not in arrears of rent and prayed that the plaintiff's (citizen Wilson Alwis) action be dismissed with costs. After trial the District Judge held in favour of the plaintiff (Wilson Alwis) and entered judgment accordingly. Against this judgment the defendant tenant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

A similar matter came up before two judges of the Court of Appeal namely, Justice G. P. S. de Silva (later Chief Justice) and Justice Goonewardena (later a Supreme Court Judge). This judgment M.M.Perera Vs D.M.J.de Silva is reported (1988) in Sri Lanka Report at page 351.

It was admitted at the hearing of the appeal, that the rent for the relevant period (i.e the alleged period of arrears of rent) was deposited at the Urban Council of Matara. It was also not disputed that the Matara Urban Council is an authorized person in terms of section 21 of the Rent Act. Nor disputed that the deposit of rent with the said Urban Council was in respect of the premises in question. However the counsel for the plaintiff respondent (like Wilson Alwis) argued that :- (a) the rent was not paid by the tenant as required by section 21 of the Act and (b) that there was no payment of rent in favour of the plaintiff (like Wilson Alwis) who is the landlord (as at present).

Justice De Silva pointed out in his judgment that at the trial before the District Judge an admission was recorded to the effect that the defendant tenant (like Almeida) deposited the rent in the name of the deceased landlord (Don Alwis) with the Urban Council. There was evidence in the record that the plaintiff in this case (like Wilson Alwis) admitted in cross-examination that he knew that the defendant tenant (like Almeida) depositing the rent in the Urban Council and that he requested the tenant to pay the rent directly to him. The evidence recorded also revealed that the tenant had said that his daughter Sumana Almeida deposited rent with the Urban Council on his behalf. Further the tenant (like Almeida) had written a letter D2 to the Chairman U.C. stating that rent in respect of these premises would be paid by his daughter Sumana. 

Taking these facts into consideration Justice De Silva held that the deposit of rent in respect of these premises in the U.C. falls within the provisions of subsection 1 of section 21 of the Rent Act. He then said that once it is established that the payment of rent has been paid in accordance with section 21(1) of the Rent Act, then Section 21(2) provides that such payment shall be deemed to be a payment received on that day by the landlord from the tenant. It was further stated in the judgment that evidence revealed even when the former landlord was living the tenant (like Almeida) was depositing rent with the Urban Council.

Justice De Silva further observed . "that it seems to me that a Court should not construe this section in an unduly narrow and technical manner. If it does so, the statutory provisions contained therein would to a large extent be rendered nugatory. Finally it was held that on a consideration of the totality of the material placed before the court, the deposit of rent made at the U.C. Moratuwa attracts the benefit of the provisions of Section 21(1 ) of the Rent Act and thus the finding of the Distnct Judge that the defendant (tenant) was in arrears of rent cannot be sustained. The appeal was allowed and dismissed the plaintiff's action, but without costs.

Based on this judgment the plaintiff Wilson Alwis cannot succeed in his action.

[Names are fictitious]

Return to Plus Contents