Colombo Municipality restrained from interfering with possession of Summer Garden Ltd

Tuesday, 13 December 2011 01:05 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By T. Farook Thajudeen

The duo joins an equal number who are not members of CSBA – JB Stockbrokers and Somerville Stockbrokers.

Colombo District Judge Ranjith Watupola issued this enjoining orderon the Colombo Municipal Council considering the submissions made by Counsel Faizer Musthafa instructed by Sanath Wijewardena.

The counsel submitted that the plaintiff  Summer Gardens (Private ) Limited of  No. 86/A Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha Colombo 7 earlier carried on business at  the Nomads  Grounds situated  at Alexandra Place  Colombo 7 the current premises was given  to the plaintiff as an alternative  by the defendant as the previous place was vested in the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.

The plaintiff claim that the current premises was rented out to the plaintiff by the defendant  Colombo Municipal Council on or  about August  19, 2004 for a period of one year on a tenancy agreement.

Thus the plaintiff obtained electricity and water supply to the concerned premises on the plaintiff’s account. The plaintiff claims that the Finance Committee of the defendant’s council had decided to extend the tenancy agreement for a further five year period. Consequently a tenancy agreement was signed between the parties which lapsed on August 19, 2009.

The Counsel submitted that that the plaintiff was given a verbal assurance that the agreement would be renewed every five years, thus the plaintiff spent Rs. 4, 000,000 for the structural improvement of the premises.

The plaint states that, however the defendant by the letter dated 23 November had terminated the tenancy and had issued a quit notice on the plaintiff.

On or about 7 December, the officers of the defendant council had obstructed the main entrance to the plaintiff’s premises seriously hampering the business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had stated that the defendant had   wrongfully and unlawfully obstructed the plaintiff’s access to the premises through the entrance.

The plaintiff had prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s business premises unless an irreparable loss and damage would caused to the plaintiff.