The feedback from the first edition of this piece has been a great relief for me and I’m sure for many, especially those hapless landlords that have been at the mercy of very stubborn tenants, who have taken them through sorrow and tears, in order to reap the fruits of their investment. I know there are landlords who behave as if the whole world revolves around them, taking the slightest opportunity to extort tenants through mindless increment in rents, constant harassment and bullying.
Another thorny legal issue that was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Pillars Ltd. v. Desbordes 12 NWLR 122 is that of the legal consequence for a landlord who has issued proper quit notice to a tenant and then subsequently collected rents. There are many scenarios.
“The strongest point made by the appellant is that the respondents had waived their right to forfeiture by demanding and collecting rent till 1995. I agree with the inference of the court below in agreeing with the High Court that even though the Respondent collected rent till 1991, there was a letter by the respondents’ counsel – exhibit N – written in 1992 clearly showing an intention to terminate the lease.
So long as the property remains that of the landlord and the tenant is in occupation, whatever rent that is paid on the property should justifiably be ascribed to the owner thereof as part of his legitimate income and that of itself alone should not rob him of the right of action against the tenant. Now I have read opinions on the laudable judgment of the Supreme Court wherein some have stated that the concurrent judgment of Ogunwumiju J.S.C.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: MobilePunch - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »