Weerasingham and Another v. De Silva – sllr 2002 volume 2 page 233

In the case between the Plaintiff-Respondent (lessor) and the Defendant-Appellants (tenants, including the primary appellant who admitted non-residence), the court addressed the issue of whether prolonged non-occupation of premises by a tenant, without reasonable cause, constitutes grounds for ejectment under section 28 of the Rent Act. It was held that the plaintiff’s failure to aver expressly in the plaint that the premises were residential did not invalidate the case, as the defendant-appellant admitted this fact prior to the trial. The court reaffirmed the principle that the absence of a material averment may be cured if admitted by the opposing party. Precedents such as Reid v. Samsudeen, Soyza v. Soyza, and Awa Umma v. Cassindar were cited to clarify the impact of pleadings and the c