Landlords who remove doors or roofing, disconnect utilities or forcibly put tenants out of rented premises are acting illegally and can face criminal charges, Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC has said.
Addressing complaints about the treatment of tenants on his programme, Issues in the News, Nandlall said landlords must follow the legal process to recover possession of their properties and cannot take matters into their own hands, even after obtaining a possession order.
He said complaints included landlords unilaterally demanding higher rents and interfering with tenants’ occupation when they refused to pay the increases.
According to Nandlall, some landlords respond by ripping off doors, removing roofing sheets, cutting water supplies or bringing persons to put tenants out.
“All of that is illegal. All of that is illegal,” he stated.
Nandlall said landlords who engage in such conduct could face police action and prosecution before the Magistrate’s Court. Tenants could also seek damages and an injunction in the High Court, he added.
The Attorney General explained that landlord and tenant relationships are governed principally by the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Restriction Act, alongside the ordinary law of contract.
A tenancy agreement, he said, creates obligations for both parties. The landlord guarantees the tenant exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of the rented premises and must neither interfere with that occupation nor permit others to do so.
Tenants, in turn, must pay the agreed rent at the stipulated time and in the agreed manner, comply with the tenancy’s terms and refrain from using the property for illegal purposes.
They must also not sublet or part with possession without permission, or use the premises for a purpose outside the agreement, he said. A property rented as a dwelling, for example, could not simply be converted into a rum shop.
On rent increases, Nandlall said neither party could unilaterally change the agreed sum.
“If one party does not agree, the other party can’t impose a different rent,” he stated.
He explained that a tenant could not decide to pay less, just as a landlord could not demand more without the other party’s agreement. He also pointed to a court procedure through which either party could apply for an adjustment of rent.
Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent and the tenant does not agree, Nandlall said termination of the tenancy must still comply with the agreement and applicable legal requirements.
For a fixed-term tenancy, he explained, the parties would generally remain bound for the agreed period unless the contract permitted earlier termination. A landlord could negotiate a different rent when the tenancy came up for renewal, but could not simply impose an increase midway through the existing term.
Nandlall said termination normally requires a written notice to quit, with the notice period determined by the agreement and applicable law.
He referred to a six-month notice period for certain longer tenancies where the agreement did not provide otherwise, and said the agreed rent remained payable during the notice period unless both parties accepted a change.
Serving a notice to quit does not, however, entitle a landlord to physically remove a tenant, he stressed.
According to Nandlall, the landlord must apply to a magistrate for possession and establish one of the grounds recognised by law. These could include requiring the property for personal occupation or repairs.
The magistrate must hear both sides and determine whether the landlord has established the grounds for recovering possession.
Even after a possession order is granted, Nandlall said, a landlord cannot personally eject a tenant who refuses to leave. A further application must be made for an ejectment warrant, which is executed by a court bailiff.
He stressed that tenants also remain responsible for paying rent while continuing to occupy the property after the tenancy agreement has been terminated.
“The tenant must continue to pay the agreed-upon monthly rental,” he said.
Nandlall indicated that the volume of complaints might require him to return to the subject in a subsequent programme.
He also said government had to consider the differing circumstances of landlords and tenants, including persons making substantial investments in rental properties and ordinary citizens unable to afford higher-priced accommodation.
Referring to the Condominium Act and government’s promotion of townhouses, he said the legal framework must cater for different housing arrangements and levels of affordability.
Discussion