Rajapakse v. Bogoda – sllr 1997 volume 2 page 390

In the case between Rajapakse (plaintiff-appellant) and Bogoda (defendant-respondent), the issue concerned whether the plaintiff-appellant fulfilled the statutory requirement under Section 22(1) and (2)(bb) of the Rent Act, specifically the ownership of only one residential premises, and the implications of any attempt to contract out of the Rent Act. The court determined that the statutory burden to prove exclusive ownership of a single residential property was not met by the plaintiff-appellant. It was established that the plaintiff could not designate one property as a “residential premises” for the suit where multiple properties were owned. The findings validated the lower court’s dismissal of the action and affirmed that the requirements of the Rent Act must be strictly satisfied, mai