Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Covenant For Quiet Enjoyment

    Uploaded by

    Jensen
    45 views2 pages
    This document discusses the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment that landlords provide to tenants. It summarizes three cases related to this covenant: 1) Ram v Ramkissoon established that damage from rainwater seeping into a tenant's rooms due to the landlord removing the roof above constituted a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. 2) Kenny v Preen involved a landlord's deliberate attempts to drive out a tenant through persecution, intimidation and threats, which was ruled to breach the covenant even without direct physical interference. 3) Tapper v Myrie concerned a landlord cutting off electricity to a tenant's room in an attempt to make them leave, which was considered a physical interference breaching the covenant despite occurring

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    COVENANT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment that landlords provide to tenants. It summarizes three cases related to this covenant: 1) Ram v Ramkissoon established that damage from rainwater seeping into a tenant's rooms due to the landlord removing the roof above constituted a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. 2) Kenny v Preen involved a landlord's deliberate attempts to drive out a tenant through persecution, intimidation and threats, which was ruled to breach the covenant even without direct physical interference. 3) Tapper v Myrie concerned a landlord cutting off electricity to a tenant's room in an attempt to make them leave, which was considered a physical interference breaching the covenant despite occurring

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views2 pages

    Covenant For Quiet Enjoyment

    Uploaded by

    Jensen
    This document discusses the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment that landlords provide to tenants. It summarizes three cases related to this covenant: 1) Ram v Ramkissoon established that damage from rainwater seeping into a tenant's rooms due to the landlord removing the roof above constituted a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. 2) Kenny v Preen involved a landlord's deliberate attempts to drive out a tenant through persecution, intimidation and threats, which was ruled to breach the covenant even without direct physical interference. 3) Tapper v Myrie concerned a landlord cutting off electricity to a tenant's room in an attempt to make them leave, which was considered a physical interference breaching the covenant despite occurring

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    COVENANT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT

    Kenny v Preen [1962] 3 All ER 814.

    Ram v Ramkissoon (1968) 13 WIR 332


    In this case, the appellant was a statutory tenant of two rooms in a central portion of a
    building in which he carried on business as a jeweler. The building was old and in a bad state
    of repair, and its two end portions has been unoccupied for several years. The respondent
    landlord, who owned the whole building, wish to obtain vacant possession of the central
    portion also. While ejectment proceedings were pending, the respondent removed the
    galvanized iron sheets from the roof of both end portions of the buildings. The appellant
    complained that, as a direct consequence of the removal of the roof, rainwater seeped through
    the rooms he occupied, causing annoyance, discomfort and physical damage to his property.
    He claimed damages for, inter alia, breach of the landlord’s implied 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.

    Per Wooding CJ:


    “…To constitute an actionable breach, the interference with the tenant’s enjoyment of the
    tenancy must be substantial: Brown v Flower.”

    Kenny v Preen [1962] 3 All ER 814


    “There was a deliberate and persistent attempt by the landlord to drive the tenant out of her
    possession of the premises by persecution and intimidation, and intimidation included threats
    of physical eviction of the tenant and removal of her belongings”.

    “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’.

    You might also like