Pathirana v. Ahangama – sllr 1982 volume 1 page 392

In the case between Pathirana and Ahangama, the court addressed the issue of whether the respondent’s occupation of the premises constituted bona fide possession, entitling protection under section 328 of the Civil Procedure Code, or whether the respondent was merely a licensee with no independent possessory rights. It was held that the respondent did not possess bona fide rights independent from those of W.S. Perera; rather, the legal status conferred was purely that of a licensee. The rule was reaffirmed that a licensee’s possession, dependent on another’s limited interest, is insufficient to sustain an action for restoration under section 328. Reliance was placed on governing statutes and pertinent precedents, emphasizing that alleged tenants lacking genuine and independent rights of po