Senanayake v. Siriwardene – sllr 2001 volume 2 page 371

In the case between the minor plaintiff (later ratifying the lease upon attaining majority) and the defendant lessee (who erected a cinema and failed to vacate after the lease period), the court addressed whether periodic rent increases amounted to a new contract or merely varied the original lease. It was held that rental increases did not constitute a fresh agreement but represented variation of existing contractual terms, preserving the enforceability of the original lease. The principle reaffirmed is that a variation of a term in a contract does not automatically terminate or supersede the original contract absent express intention. Reliance was placed on sound contractual interpretation and judicial discipline to avoid subordinating substantive issues to procedural technicalities. The