Pinona v. Dewanarayana and Others – sllr 2004 volume 2 page 011

In the case between the original plaintiff/appellant and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants/respondents (with a particular focus on the 3rd defendant as the tenant), the court addressed whether a tenant, who makes rent payments to an authorized agent in the name of someone other than the true landlord, could be ejected in a vindicatory action. The court held that payment of rent to an authorized person does not alter the tenant’s contractual obligations under the Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972, and the mere change in property ownership does not entitle the new owner to ejectment, reaffirming that attornment and proper evidence are essential to alter such contractual tenancies. The decision relied on established case law, including Jayasingham v Arumugam and Hussain v Jiffry, emphasizing that the co