SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Nimble Investments (Pty) Ltd vs. Johanna Malan and Others - (30 Sep 2021)

Fundamental breach of relationship justifies eviction

Tenancy

The Appellant’s appeal is against an order of the Land Claims Court, Randburg, which set aside an order by the Magistrate’s Court that, the Respondents be evicted from (the farm, in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997 (ESTA). The ground for their eviction was essentially that, the first Respondent had committed a fundamental breach of the relationship between her and the manager or owner of the farm, that was practically impossible to restore as envisaged in Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA.

The conduct constituted a fundamental breach of the relationship between the occupier and the landowner, justifying the eviction of the Respondents. The eviction was just and equitable as it was untenable to force a landowner to continue with a relationship which, according to the evidence was practically impossible to restore. For this reason and on a proper construction of Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA, it was unnecessary to grant the Respondents an opportunity to make representations as envisaged in Section 8(1)(e) of Act.

A number of the Respondents were employed elsewhere but paid no rent and made no contribution to utilities. The Supreme Court concluded that, the landowner could not be expected to provide free housing and utilities to the Respondents as it had done for a number of years. ESTA was not intended to promote the security of opportunistic occupiers at the expense and exploitation of the rights of landowners. Moreover, the Appellant was, and remained willing to assist the Respondents financially in finding alternative accommodation. This assistance was unreasonably refused. In a minority judgment, it was held that the order of eviction was not just and equitable. The Respondents had not been given an opportunity to make representations as envisaged in Section 8(1)(e) of ESTA, why their rights of residence should not be terminated.

Tags : EVICTION   GRANT   JUSTIFICATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved