The applicable laws are: Prescription Ordinance No.2 of 1889; Primary Courts Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979; and Rent Act No.7 of 1972. The primary issue in such situations is the applicability of Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance. Pursuant to this section, proof of undisturbed and uninterrupted possession for a period of 10 years without acknowledgment of the Plaintiff’s ownership entitles the occupier (Defendant) to obtain a decree of court granting him title by prescription. Section 13 lists the disabilities, which would delay the commencement of the period of 10 years. The list is exhaustive and refers to infancy, idiocy, unsoundness of mind, lunacy, and absence beyond the seas. When the person in possession of the property claims title by prescription, if the owner has lived outside the country when the ouster took place, he can, for example, benefit from the exception provided in “absence beyond the seas”. On the other hand, if the owner was displaced internally, he would not be able to get a judgment in his favour. Evidence of nonfunctioning of courts may not necessarily affect prescription. Although there is a possibility that the owner may be able to challenge the claim of prescription by claiming no “adverse possession”, this is likely to involve a lengthy legal battle. Our suggestion is that operation of Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance be made inapplicable to the affected areas, or that the exceptions listed in section 13 be expanded to include circumstances arising out of the conflict. Below, we analyse the different scenarios that may be present in different instances: i) Situations where an unrelated private person4 is in possession If the owner makes a claim on the property and a dispute results, the provisions of the Primary Courts Procedure Act may come into operation. Sections 66 – 76 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act deal with temporary order for possession and other rights in cases where a breach of peace is threatened or is likely. In terms of Section 68, any person who has been in possession for 2 months preceding the application or who has been dispossessed within two months, is entitled to possession. Even a trespasser can benefit from this provision. In order to vindicate his title and eject the occupant, the owner will have to file a rei vindicatio action in the civil courts. The provisions of the Prescription Ordinance will be relevant. Section 4 enables a person who was dispossessed to bring a posessory action within one year of such dispossession and entitles him to have possession returned without proof of ownership. Since this remedy would not be available to those who have been dispossessed for longer periods, we recommend that the limitation of time in this provision be suspended to enable returning refugees and IDPs to regain possession. ii) If the occupant is a person who originally entered the premises as a licensee, tenant or lessee Such occupiers may not benefit from Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance as they would be deemed to have acknowledged the title of the owner and have remained on the premises in the same capacity as they entered. The owner may, therefore, be able to eject them upon determining the license, terminating the tenancy or lease, or if the lease has expired, by treating him as an over-holding lessee. 4 This would include civilians, members of the security forces, the LTTE or other armed or political groups. 9