RENTERS suing for late eviction notice have asked the High Court to reconsider a ruling by the High Courts Appeal Court that allowed the landlord to claim the money owed them for a year.
In their petition for reconsideration, the tenants argued that the decision to evict them was “without legal basis”, and argued that because they had no prior tenancy agreement, the eviction should have been stayed.
RENTERS are suing for a rent payment to dateThe tenants have been trying to evict the landlord since the end of June, when the court granted a final order in favour of the tenants in a dispute over a payment to them of rent in excess of £2,000.
The High Court rejected their arguments, saying the tenancy agreement they had signed at the start of the tenancy did not allow the tenant to make a rent claim, and the landlord was entitled to use the money to repay the amount owed.
But in a judgment released on Thursday, the High High Court ruled that the landlord had not proved that they had a valid tenancy agreement.
In the petition, the tenant argued that they could not prove the agreement had been valid, because the lease was not in force when they signed the tenancy, and it would not have been valid in the absence of a valid agreement.
The tenants argued for a payment of £150 a month for the period of the stay, which would cover the remaining two months of rent.
They also claimed that the tenancy was terminated by the landlord in breach of the terms of their agreement, but it had not been in force at the time they signed it.
The petition for review also said that because there was no evidence to support their argument that they were entitled to any rent relief under the tenancy contract, the tenancy had been terminated without cause.
The High Courts appeal court on Friday rejected the tenants’ arguments, and held that the eviction had been made without legal basis.
“The matter of eviction was not a matter of reasonableness or of the nature of the matter,” the High court said.
“The court is satisfied that the premises and the premises themselves are occupied by a tenant and not a tenant of the premises.”
It is clear that the issue is one of fact and not one of law.
The issue is a matter for the courts to determine in accordance with the relevant law.
“A statement issued by the tenants said that the matter would be heard in court on March 25.”
This is an important matter for tenants and for the whole community, as we seek a full refund of the rent that has been due to us for two years,” the statement read.