Supreme Court: Promotion Remains Valid Even if an Employee's Grade Pay Stays Unchanged  ||  SC Orders Bihar Government to Remove Ganga Riverbank Encroachments in Patna Within Six Weeks  ||  Bombay HC: Child of Single Mother Can’t be Denied RTE Quota over Deceased Father's Caste Certificate  ||  J&K&L HC: Complaint Dismissed Before Cognisance is Not an Acquittal & is Challengeable U/S 528 BNSS  ||  Delhi HC Acquits Man in 2006 Rape Case, Says Names Like Ram or Mohammad do Not Define Virtue  ||  Gujarat HC: Whatsapp Forward of Fake Newspaper Clipping Not Forgery Absent Proof of Fabrication  ||  Supreme Court tells Parsvnath Developers to Comply with Haryana RERA Orders or Face Jail  ||  Supreme Court: Article 142 Cannot Override a Concluded and Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties  ||  SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage  ||  SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage    

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