Barakathulla v. Hinniappuhamy – sllr 1982 volume 2 page 463

In the case between Barakathulla (plaintiff, landlord) and Hinniappuhamy (defendant, tenant), the court examined whether unauthorized alterations by the tenant—including reroofing, replacement of supporting timber, and enclosure of open spaces—constituted “wilful damage” under the Rent Restriction Act so as to warrant ejectment. The sequence of events revealed that the tenant undertook repairs and improvements without prior approval from the local authority, leading to a challenge by the landlord. It was determined based on statutory interpretation, the evaluation of expert evidence, and principles of Roman Dutch Law as articulated in Voet 19.2.18 that the actions, while lacking formal authorization, did not rise to the level of irreparable or malignant damage necessary to justify ejectmen