Mudalihamy vs Karupanan – clr volume 1 page 088

In the matter between Mudalihamy (temple trustee for Niyangampaya Vihara under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance) and Karupanan (occupant of the temple property), the court addressed whether a trustee appointed under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance may recover rent from an occupant when no direct tenancy contract exists with the trustee. The court determined that, in the absence of an express or statutorily vested contractual relationship obligating the defendant to pay rent to the trustee, no cause of action for recovery of rent could be sustained by the trustee. This position reaffirmed the principle that statutory trustees may only enforce contractual rights explicitly vested in them by law or agreement. Reliance was placed on analysis of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, hi