Weerasena v. Mathupala – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 329

In the case between the landlord (plaintiff/appellant) and the tenant (defendant/respondent) occupying premises previously used for a medical practice, the court examined the extent to which the landlord’s premises are “reasonably required” for personal profession under the Rent Act, and the significance of the tenant’s efforts to obtain alternate accommodation. It was held that, based on statutory interpretation and the review of relevant precedent, a landlord’s substantial improvements to the property and need for professional use may support ejectment when a tenant fails to demonstrate genuine attempts to secure other premises. The decision reaffirms the principle that a landlord’s reasonable requirement, coupled with a tenant’s inadequate pursuit of alternative accommodation, can warra