Landlord Tenant Law - Learn More from Our Free Essay

The tenant landlord relationship is a contractual relationship and just like any other contractual relationship, it is subject to the laws governing the contract. That is to say that every party to the contract has his or her own responsibility to be carried out under the contract.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The rights and responsibilities of the tenant.

Under the law governing the tenant and the landlord, the law imposes certain rights and responsibilities on the tenant as a party to the contract. Each right and responsibility will be handled independently in light of the case study above.

Rights of the tenant.

One of the major rights that a tenant holds in land is the right to the quiet enjoyment of the land. As was held in the case of London Borough of Southwark and Another v. Mills and Others (A.P.) quiet enjoyment does not mean the absence of noise but rather the lack of interference with ones land in any way whatsoever. The right to enjoyment of land was also held in the case of Hudson V Cripps where the court upheld the provision of the right to the quiet enjoyment of ones land. Section 67 of the Residential Tenancies Act of Australia states that the landlord shall take all necessary steps to ensure that a tenant is entitled to his right of quiet enjoyment of land. Rodgers right of enjoyment has hence been infringed impliedly by the landlord. In this case, the quiet enjoyment which upon construction is found to have the meaning of non-interference has been breached by the landlord. This provision is based on the maxim Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos which gives the tenant the right to own anything in that land he occupies. (Cooke, 2006)Right to have repairs in the house carried out in reasonable time. Pursuant to section 5 of the Residential Tenant right to Repair Act, it is the duty of the landlord to endure that the residence of the tenant is free from any defects provided that they were not caused directly by the tenant herself. If the destruction is by Vis majure then it shall also be the duty of the landlord to repair. From the scenario, it is evident that the right to repairs have been infringed directly by the landlord. Based on section 5 of the above act, it is evident that the person liable for the repairs in this case is the land lord and not the tenant.

Right to security. The right to reasonable security is also an obligation the landlord owes the tenant. Once in the premises, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that there is reasonable and sufficient security to the tenant.

Responsibilities of the tenant.

With all rights come responsibilities and therefore the tenant has certain responsibilities. They include.

To pay rent on time. This is a responsibility that was carried out to the later by Rodgers. He was the perfect tenant that Larry was looking for who paid his dues in time. The Oregon laws states that the duty to pay rent is subject to the agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

The second duty is to take care of the premises. The tenant in any residence has the responsibility to take care of the premises. This provision has a universal application. The same is enshrined under section 66 of the Kenyan Land Registration Act. This is a responsibility that was observed by the tenant. However, it was breached at the point when he used a bat to destroy the wall socket.

Not to use the premises for any illegal activity. All premises are to be used only as per the provisions of any written law.

Rights and responsibilities of the land lord.

The landlord subject to section 5 of the Illinois Residential Tenant right to Repair Act is to ensure that the repairs have been made after notification by the tenant. Failure to this, the tenant may have a redress of failing to pay the rents that accrue until such payments have been made was the same decision held in the case of Eather v Nguyen where the landlord was ordered to compensate the tenant for the damages caused after he failed to repair the floor of the premises causing the business to be closed for some time. This is the number one responsibility of the landlord.

The landlord also has the right to be informed of any repairs; a provision that was well followed by Rodgers. He also has the right to terminate the lease agreement after careful consideration of the circumstances. He also has the right to receive the rent at the period that has been specified by the terms of the lease agreement. (Cartwright, 2006)

MITIGATION OF THE SITUATION

Both the landlord and the tenant have a legal duty to mitigate the situation in several ways. To begin with, the land lord has the legal duty of repairing the roof. In addition to this he also has the right to pay damages that have been suffered by the tenant. Such include the destruction of the furniture and the clothing of Mr. Rodgers as was held in the case of Eather v Nguyen. The tenant took all the reasonable steps as provided by law which were however overlooked by the landlord.

The tenant may also mitigate by paying for the damages caused by the baseball bat to the wall socket as it is also his responsibility by law to ensure that the premises is well taken care.

In the case of eviction, Larry has no legal right whatsoever to evict Roger. The provisions for evictions are when the tenant has defied the payment of rend or on the grounds of gross misconduct by the tenant. In the event that the landlord relies on the damage to the wall socket as a ground for eviction, subjecting this to the reasonability test as was in the case of Avrora V Christe, it would appear to be so minor a thing as to form the basis for any eviction by the landlord.

Any efforts for eviction shall hence be declared to be null and void on the basis of the reasonability test. Even if Roger was to pay for the damages, it still would have not mitigated the situation to any extent since the situation will not have changed and on the basis that his contribution to any damages was so remote to be taken to account. (Grey, 2004)

Payment of Damages

Since both Larry and the Roger have caused some amount of damages, it may be prima facie construed that they both have to pay the damages caused to each other. However, when unfolding the facts and subjecting them to provisions of the law, it may be found out that this is not expressly the case.

Subject to the provisions in Earther V Nguyen, the court held that the landlord had the obligation to pay the tenant for all damages that were caused by the failure to repair. The court however held that the provision is not absolute and was subject to some exceptions. The provisions only applied when:

The tenant gave the landlord notice on the same

The tenant was not part of the cause of the damages

In light of the holding in this case, it is evident that Larry is liable to pay damages caused to Rogers assets that were destroyed by the rain. In this case he is to pay for the damages caused to the furniture, clothing and the precious stones that have been destroyed by the licking roof and also for the negligence depicted by the landlord. all the damages caused arose out of the direct negligence of the landlord to refuse to repair.

It may be argued that the there was also damage caused by the teller. This is however to remote to be considered. Damages in this case may not be a ground since it is as a result of the negligence by the landlord as was stated by Roger. This is however a minor argument. The major cause of Roger not paying for the damages is on the basis of its remoteness and its annexure to the case

References

Cartwright, E. H. (2006). Modern Law of Real Propery. Washington D C: New YorkOxford Univerity Press.

Cooke, E. (2006). Land Law. New York: Oxford University Pres.

Grey, K. (2004). Elements of Land Law. Carlifonia: Oxford University Press.