Ismath v. Selladurai – sllr 1995 volume 1 page 353

In the case between the owner of the premises (Plaintiff/Appellant) and the tenant (Defendant/Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the premises had been “let” to the defendant on or after the commencement of the Rent Act, as stipulated by subsection 22(1)(b) and 22(1)(bb). The central question was whether the act of attornment or succession created a new tenancy for the purposes of recovering possession based on “reasonable requirement.” It was held that the term “let” refers exclusively to the original creation of a tenancy and does not extend to subsequent attornment, succession, or contractual arrangements post-commencement of the Rent Act. The holding reaffirmed the principle that the relevant relationship is confined to the original letting, and a change in landlord b