Bombay HC: Courts Cannot Mandate Mediation under Mediation Act 2023 Without Mutual Consent  ||  Kerala HC: Embassy NOC Not Required For Indian-Foreigner Marriage under Special Marriage Act  ||  MP High Court: Penalty May Stand if Misconduct is Proven, Even if Inquiry is Vitiated  ||  Bombay High Court: Lilavati Trust FIR Against HDFC Bank CEO Driven by Personal Vendetta  ||  Supreme Court: Register Entry Not Required To Pursue Oppression/Mismanagement Claims  ||  Supreme Court: Lifting Corporate Veil May Include Group Assets in Holding Company’s CIRP  ||  Allahabad HC: MPs, Judges and Ministers May Use ‘Hon’ble’; Civil Servants are Not Entitled to it  ||  Calcutta HC: Salary Withholding and Harassment Claims are Not Defamation Without Reputational Harm  ||  Gauhati HC: Officer Resigning Without New Govt Appointment Cannot Claim Pension under Assam Service  ||  MP HC: Attachment & Auction are Quasi-Judicial Duties of Tehsildar; Action Invalid Without Mala Fide    

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