Hussain v. Lalvanai – sllr 1997 volume 2 page 242

In the case between the Plaintiff-Appellant (landlord seeking possession for a textile business) and the Defendant-Respondent (occupant associated with “Lalvani Brothers”), the court addressed whether the premises were “reasonably required” for the plaintiff’s business under section 22(2)(b) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972. It was held that the District Judge had erred in imposing an excessive evidentiary burden by demanding proof of an established business through documentary evidence not mandated by statute and in considering extraneous factors beyond the statutory scope. The decision reaffirmed that the correct focus for “reasonable requirement” is the landlord’s business necessity as provided by statute, referencing precedents such as Gunasena v. Sangalingam Pillai & Co., Hameedu Lebbe v