Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
But document P5 is amply clear with regard to the fact that 'no quantumof rent has been specified’. To constitute a contract of tenancy quantum ofrent is an essential requirement. By P5 when no such quantum has beenfixed obviously no contract of tenancy has been created by P5. Wille onLandlord and tenant at page 8 states as follows
“Rent – A definite agreement as to the amount of rentpayable is an essential element of every contract of lease: so much so, that until the rent has been fixed, the contractis not considered to be complete."
Therefore I conclude that as no quantum of rent has been specified or itis silent about even subsequent determination of rent P 5 does not createa contract of tenancy. Therefore the authorities cited by the Appellanthave no application since those have been instances where services werequantified in money. No evidence was placed by the defendants to establishdetermination of any rent. Even the application made (VII) for determinationof rent had been dismissed. Therefore I conclude that the contention of the1A/2A appellant’s counsel, that the deceased 1st defendant did pay arent by rendering services, cannot succeed.

Nelum vs
Kadija Umma (Chandra Ekanayake, J.)
In my view necessity has also arisen to consider the decision in EileenPrins V. Marjorie Patternotf41 wherein it was held to the following effect by
R. T. Dias Bandaranayake, J. (S. B. Gunawardena, J, and P. R. P.Perera, J. agreeing) that:
Section 10 (1) of the Rent Act, No. 07 of 1972 sets out what constitutes
the letting of a part of premises. In such a tenancy,
the object should be to let and hire;
the portion of the premises must be properly defined for exclusiveoccupation by the tenant;
the landlord should relinquish his right of control over such part ofthe premises; and
there must be payment of a fixed rent which is ascertainable atany time by a definite method.
Mere permissive occupation by a person, of property of another,even if some payment of money for the personal privilege extendedis made, is not a letting of premises creating a tenancy.
the true nature of the transaction is to be ascertained by aconsideration of all the relevant facts. The Court must find out whatthe parties intended to create.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
The use of words such as rent, tenancy, rent in advance etc. is notconclusive proof of a contract of tenancy. These are words whichlaymen are apt to use for any payment in respect of accommodation.
According to the above decision mere permissive occupation by aperson, of property of another, even if some payment of money for thepersonal privilege extended is made, is not a letting of premises creatinga tenancy. In the instant case there is nothing to infer that any payment ofmoney has been made. Further it has to be observed although there issome reference to ‘in lieu of renV in P5, according to the above decisionuse of words such as rent, tenancy, rent in advance etc. is not conclusiveproof of a contract of tenancy.
For the foregoing reasons I see no reason to interfere with the findingsof the learned Judge and the appeal will stand dismissed with costs fixedat Rs.5000 payable by the Appellant to the Plaintiff – Respondent.
The Registrar of this Court is directed to forward the record in case No.2936/Ltothe respective District Court forthwith.
ANDREW SOMAWANSA , J (P/CA) – / agree.
Appeal dismissed.