Perera v. Gunawardena – sllr 1982 volume 1 page 214

Brief
In the case between Benjamin Perera (appellant) and Gunawardena (respondent), the court addressed whether continued occupation by the appellant after notice constituted lawful tenancy or merely an overholding license, and examined the validity of a second notice (D3) demanding vacant possession. The sequence of events saw the appellant’s long-term, rent-free occupation under the respondent’s sister’s arrangement, followed by acknowledgment of the respondent’s ownership and issuance of two notices to vacate. It was ultimately held that the appellant was an overholding licensee, not a tenant, and his continued occupation did not confer title. The notice (D3) was found valid, functioning as a proper demand for possession. The appeal was dismissed with costs, reaffirming the principle th