Samy v. Hussain – sllr 2003 volume 2 page 166

In SAMY v. HUSSAIN, the court addressed whether a tenant’s prolonged absence from residential premises constituted “non-occupation” under section 28 of the Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972. It was held that “occupation” requires actual personal occupation or a clear retention of control and intent to return, and the mere residence of dependents does not suffice. The court emphasized that the landlord bears the burden to prove abandonment, but absence for reasons such as employment abroad is not automatically protection unless steps are taken to preserve the tenancy. The appellate decision overturned the trial court, reaffirming that the tenant had failed to prove continuing genuine occupation or interest, and directed judgment for the plaintiff-appellant. Established judicial authorities and statut