Covenant For Quiet Enjoyment
Covenant For Quiet Enjoyment
Court of Appeal Held: The damage suffered by the appellant was sufficiently substantial to
constitute a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
“The course of conduct by the landlord seriously interfered with the tenant’s proper freedom
of action in exercising her right of possession, tended to deprive her of the full benefit of it,
and was an invasion of her rights as tenant to remain in possession undisturbed, and so would
in itself constitute a breach of covenant, even if there were no direct physical interference
with the tenant’s possession and enjoyment”.
Tapper v Myrie
Landlord demanded additional payment for rent and the tenant refused to pay, whereupon the
landlord gave notice to quit. The tenant did not leave and one night when he returned home,
he found there was no electricity in his room which he spoke to the landlord about and to
which the landlord responded by indicating that he did that to drive the tenant out.
Held: The court held that the action of the landlord was a breach of the implied covenant for
quiet enjoyment, notwithstanding that the act complained of was done off the premises, since
it was a ‘physical interference with the demised premises’.