W G Upasena and others Vs. Mohamed Sali Siththy Kadeeja – CA 125/99 F-2012

The case between Mohamed Sali Siththy Kadeeja (Plaintiff-Respondent) and W G Upasena and W G Jayasingha (Defendant-Appellants) addressed whether the plaintiff, as landlord, was entitled to recover possession of business premises from the defendants on the grounds of reasonable requirement. The proceedings determined that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s genuine need to recover possession for livelihood was established. The validity of the notice to quit and inconsistencies in the defendants’ position were closely examined. The court confirmed the original finding in favor of the plaintiff, reaffirming the rule that a party cannot approbate and reprobate and that silence in the face of material notice may be construed as admission. Precedent and evide