Jinadasa v. Pieris – sllr 1981 volume 2 page 417

In Jinadasa (landlord) v. Pieris (tenant), the court addressed whether a tenant who has ceased to occupy rented premises personally for more than six months, as prescribed by section 28(1) of the Rent Act of 1972, may preserve tenancy rights through the continued residence of dependents. It was held that personal occupation by the tenant is a statutory requirement and cannot be satisfied by the mere presence of relatives or dependents in the premises. The principle that retention of tenancy under the Act demands personal occupation by the tenant was reaffirmed. Reliance was placed on English authority, notably Brown v. Brash, and local precedents, establishing that the absence of the tenant and the lack of “reasonable cause” excludes protection under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, affi