Abeysekera v. Carolis – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 001

The case between Abeysekera and Carolis addressed the issue of the landlord’s “reasonable requirement” for eviction under sections 22(1)(bb) and 22(1C) of the Rent Act. It was held that the duty of the Commissioner of National Housing to provide alternative accommodation to the tenant is a relevant but not decisive factor in determining the reasonableness of a landlord’s claim for recovery of premises. The decision reaffirmed that the availability of alternative accommodation should be considered among other factors, emphasizing a balanced approach which does not prioritize either party’s interests in isolation. Reliance was placed on relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedent, with the outcome supporting the continued protection of tenants unless all statutory criteria for evict