IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal from the Judgment dated 27-05-2016 of the Court of Appeal in C.A. 986/98 (F) in terms of Article 128 of The Constitution.

S.C. Appeal No: 82/2017 Mohamed Sufian Mohamed Faumi, S.C. (Spl.L.A.) Application No: No. 249, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

114/2016 PLAINTIFF Vs.

Appeal No: C.A. 986/98 (F) P.A. Cyril Perera, Perera Bakery, District Court of Gampaha Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

Case No: 33206/L DEFENDANT AND Mohamed Sufian Mohamed Faumi, No. 249, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs.

P.A. Cyril Perera, (Deceased)

Perera Bakery, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT 1. P.A. Sunila Kanthi Perera

2. P.A. Shriyani Mallika Perera

3. P.A. Kumuduni Champika Perera

4. P.A. Sunil Renuka Perera All of Perera Bakery, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-

RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Mohamed Sufian Mohamed Faumi, No. 249, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-

APPELLANT Vs.

1. P.A. Sunila Kanthi Perera

2. P.A. Shriyani Mallika Perera

3. P.A. Kumuduni Champika Perera

4. P.A. Sunil Renuka Perera All of Perera Bakery, Thihariya, Kalagedihena.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Before : P. Padman Surasena, J.

: Menaka Wijesundera, J.

: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

Counsel : H. Withanachchi for the Plaintiff-Appellant-

Appellant.

: Sumith Senanayake, P.C. with Nisali Minoma Balachandra instructed by Damitha Wickrama Arachchi for the Substituted Defendant-

Respondent-Respondent.

Argued on : 30-01-2025 Written Submissions : 20-02-2025, 05-06-2017 (By the Plaintiff-

Appellant-Appellant)

Decided on : 21-03-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

The plaintiff-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) preferred this appeal on the basis of being dissatisfied of the judgment dated 27-05-2016 pronounced by the Court of Appeal, wherein, the appeal preferred by him challenging the judgment pronounced by the District Court of Gampaha in Case No. 33206/L was dismissed.

When this matter was supported for Leave to Appeal, this Court granted leave on 03-04-2017, based on the following questions of law.

1. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by taking the view that a tenant can never contract out of the protection afforded by the Rent Act on the basis of the judgment in Hussain Vs. Jiffry (2002) 1 Sri L R page 185, in which the tenant had resumed payments to the landlord.

2. Has the Court of Appeal erred in law by its failure to consider that the plaintiff had forgone the rent in respect of the building at issue and that the defendant could retain the tenancy in respect of the other buildings in terms of settlements reached by the parties in determination of the issue whether a tenant can contract outside the Rent Act.

3. Was the Court of Appeal in error by not taking cognisance that the defendant was not prohibited from renouncing his tenancy in terms of the provisions of the Rent Act.

4. Did the both Courts err in law by not appreciating that the contract of tenancy between the parties had come to an end upon the entry of the settlement by which the primary obligation of the tenant to pay rent was dispensed with.

5. Have both the Courts erred in law by appreciating that, in view of the cessation of the payment of rent by mutual consent with the undertaking to deliver the possession to the landlord on a fixed date, has brought about the termination of tenancy and created a contract of license.

This is a matter where the appellant has filed an action against the now deceased-defendant of the District Court action, seeking for a declaration of title to the land morefully described in the schedule of the plaint and also for an order to evict the original defendant and anyone who claims under him from the land mentioned in the schedule.

Although, the action has been instituted in the form of an action for declaration of title and ejectment, there had been no dispute at the trial that in fact, the appellant was the landlord of the original defendant, and the