Nelum v. Kadija Umma – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 187

In the case between the Administrator of the estate of the late Rasheed (Plaintiff) and the applicant occupying the premises under document P5 (Defendant), the court addressed whether the defendant’s occupation gave rise to a bona fide contract of tenancy in the absence of a specified quantum of rent. It was held that no contract of tenancy exists where no fixed rent has been agreed upon, despite references such as “in lieu of rent.” The findings reaffirmed the principle that a valid tenancy requires ascertainable rent and that appellate courts should exercise caution before disturbing the trial judge’s firsthand findings on primary facts. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs awarded against the appellant, emphasizing that the mere permissive occupation or certain payments do no