Kodituwakku Arachchi v. Wadugodapitiya – sllr 1994 volume 3 page 029

In the case between the Plaintiff-appellant, the owner of No. 23-2/11 Dalada Veediya, Kandy, and the Defendant-respondent, the domestic aide claiming succession rights as a dependant of the deceased tenant, the central issue concerned whether a domestic aide qualifies as a “dependant” under section 36(2)(a)(i) of the Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972, for the purpose of tenancy succession. The court held that a person employed as a domestic aide under a contractual arrangement does not fall within the statutory meaning of “dependant” required for such succession rights. The legal principle reaffirmed was that the term “dependant” necessitates a relationship beyond a mere contract of service, typically involving familial connection or legal obligation for maintenance. The decision emphasized strict i