Samayawardhena, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court of Batticaloa against the defendants seeking a declaration that they are the tenants of the plaintiff and ejectment of them from the premises in suit on the grounds of reasonable requirement and arrears of rent. In their answer, the defendants admitted that they were tenants but denied that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintiff or that arrears of rent were outstanding. In paragraph 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred that she had given one month’s notice terminating the tenancy. In paragraph 11 of the answer, however, the defendants specifically pleaded that, as tenants within the meaning of the Rent Act No. 7 of 1972, such one month’s notice was invalid in law, and therefore the action could not be maintained. This matter was put in issue at the trial. It is significant that at no stage did the plaintiff contend that the premises were outside the ambit of the Rent Act.

After trial, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on the ground that the notice to quit was not valid in law, holding that under section 22(6) of the Rent Act the plaintiff was required to give one year’s