Perera v. Halpita – sllr 2003 volume 3 page 321

In the case between Perera (plaintiff) and Halpita (defendant), the court addressed whether a tenant could be restored to possession when the subject premises had been demolished and no longer existed, and whether the remedy should be confined to a claim for damages. The court held that once the property forming the subject of the tenancy ceases to exist, the tenancy automatically terminates, and restoration is not an available remedy; the tenant’s redress is limited to damages. This principle reaffirmed that restoration of possession is not possible when the property is no longer present, relying on established landlord-tenant principles and the factual finding that restoration would be infeasible. The decision underscores that legal remedies must match the current state of the property.