D.M.M. Dissanayake v. K.P. Ranasinghe and The Rent Board of Review – CA WRIT 784/09-2009

In the case between D.M.M. Dissanayake (Petitioner) and K.P. Ranasinghe (First Respondent) with the Rent Board of Review (Second Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether a tenancy existed concerning premises No. 144, Kurunegala Road, Rambukkana, and whether decisions of the Rent Board and the Board of Review recognizing such tenancy should be quashed by writ. It was held that documentary and procedural evidence established the existence of a valid tenancy between the parties, with the Rent Board and Board of Review properly assessing the facts. The principle reaffirmed was that estoppel by conduct and recognition in correspondence bars later denial of tenancy interests. The decision drew upon documentary evidence, statutory interpretation of the Rent Act, and precedents concer