Vithanarachchi v. Mabel Perera – sllr 1994 volume 3 page 070

In the case between the landlord (plaintiff-appellant) and the tenant (defendant-respondent), the issue concerned whether the issuance of a second notice to quit—based on further misconduct (nuisance through interference with the water supply)—operated to waive the landlord’s rights under the first notice to quit. It was held that the mere act of serving a later notice does not, by itself, constitute a waiver or cancellation of the earlier notice. Strict proof is required to establish abandonment of such rights, and the evidence failed to demonstrate such a waiver. Reliance was placed on established principles of waiver, with the decision underscoring that rights under an initial notice are not automatically lost due to subsequent notices. The order of the District Court was set aside, the