Premawardena v. Indrakumar – sllr 2000 volume 1 page 139

In the case between the substituted Plaintiff-Respondent (landlord) and the Appellant (tenant), the court addressed whether the tenant’s persistent misuse of the landlord’s address in advertisements, official documents, and unauthorized utility installations constituted a nuisance under Section 22(2)(d) of the Rent Act. The court held that the cumulative conduct of the tenant did amount to a nuisance, and established that proof of specific intent (mens rea) was not necessary for such claims. Reference was made to the language and purpose of the Rent Act, with emphasis placed on the impairment of the landlord’s enjoyment of the property. The prescription defense raised by the tenant, alleging undue delay in bringing action, was rejected. The findings reaffirmed that persistent interference