Madras HC: Repeated Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act are Unworkable Without Reversing Merits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unproven Immoral Conduct of a Parent Cannot Influence Child Custody Decisions  ||  Delhi High Court: Counsel Cannot Treat Passovers or Adjournments as an Automatic Right  ||  Delhi HC: Landlord’s Rent Control Act Rights Cannot be Waived by Contract With Tenant  ||  Bom HC: Arbitrator Who Halts Proceedings over Unpaid Revised Fees Effectively Withdraws From Office  ||  SC Holds That if Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, The FIR Cannot Continue For Others  ||  SC Holds That Prior Opportunity to See Accused Can Render Test Identification Proceeding Unreliable  ||  Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits  ||  Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC  ||  J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved