Deen v. Dissanayahe – sllr 2001 volume 2 page 132

In the case between the Original Plaintiff (Substituted Plaintiff – Appellant) and the Original Defendant (Substituted Defendant – Respondent), the court addressed whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to establish subletting of a portion of the premises under Section 10(1) of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972. It was determined that the mere occupation by boarders, without exclusive possession or control over a defined portion of the premises, does not constitute subletting. The findings established that the requirements for subletting include exclusive occupation by the alleged sub-tenant and that the evidence presented only indicated shared occupancy without exclusivity. Precedents were examined that reinforced the necessity for exclusive possession to prove subletting. The decision clar