Ranasinghe Arachchige Piyasena and others Vs. D.E. Jayasinghe and others – CA 480/2000 F -2000

In the case between D.E. Jayasinghe (original plaintiff, succeeded by substituted plaintiff-respondents) and A.M.K.P. Nona (deceased) with Ranasinghe Arachchige Piyasena and Ranasinghe Arachchige Gunasena as substituted defendant-appellants (among others), the court addressed whether the defendants’ occupation of the subject property was as tenants under the Rent Act or as licensees, and whether sufficient evidence established a contract of tenancy. It was held that the defendants occupied the premises as licensees, not as tenants, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession upon revocation of the license, as the essential elements of legal tenancy were not proven. The legal principle reaffirmed is that the burden of proving a tenancy rests on the party asserting it, and