Bandula and Another v. Karthelis Appuhamy – sllr 1988 volume 2 page 114

In the case between Bandula and another (heirs/successors of Abraham Appuhamy) and the respondent occupant, the court addressed the issue of whether the defendant’s occupancy constituted continued tenancy or a mere licence, and if denial of tenancy rights affected entitlement to notice of termination. It was held that a party denying the existence of a tenancy cannot subsequently benefit from the contractual protections associated with such a status, reaffirming the principle established in Ranasinghe v. Premadharma. The decision emphasized that adverse claims to title and contradictory positions regarding tenancy undermine any right to notice, and reliance on documentary evidence must be grounded in consistency with pleaded claims. The appellate court set aside the District Court judgment