Landlord right to evict tenant

THE Court of Appeal has ordered a tenant to vacate his landlord’s premises because the tenant was paying rent for a house, but residing elsewhere, while his relatives were living in his landlord’s house. The Appeal Court, comprising Justices Wendell Kangaloo and Stanley John, in ordering the tenant’s eviction, overturned a decision of a magistrate who refused such an order.

The case the tenant brought against his landlord was heard in the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court earlier this year. The magistrate ruled the tenant could not be evicted by the landlord because he (tenant) was a registered tenant under the Rent Restriction Dwelling Houses Act 1981. The landlord sought to evict the tenant from the house on Panco Lane, San Fernando, on the ground that he (the tenant) was paying rent for the premises, but living elsewhere. In fact, the house was occupied by the tenant’s grandmother, granddaughter and the granddaughter’s husband.

The Appeal Court judges heard from attorney Carol Cuffy-Dowlat that since the tenant was registered, he was protected and could not be ejected. Attorneys Edwin Roopnarine, instructed by Prem Maharaj, submitted on the landlord’s behalf that a registered tenant did not have special privileges under the Act of renting premises and having someone else occupy same.

The landlord, the attorneys submitted, was entitled to the premises if he needed it for his own use. In a verbal decision delivered last week in the Appeal Court, Justices Kangaloo and John ruled the tenant was not protected to such an extent. The judges made an order that the tenant be evicted. The judges, however, suspended the order for a three-month stay to allow the current occupants to relocate.