Latest news with #landlordtenant
Arab News
14 hours ago
- Business
- Arab News
Study to regulate landlord-tenant relationships extended by crown prince
JEDDAH: A study intended to introduce new regulations for landlord-tenant relationships in Saudi Arabia has been extended, according to the Saudi Press Agency. The extension was granted by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Kingdom's prime minister, for a maximum period of 90 days. The decision was made following recommendations from the Real Estate General Authority, which is part of Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Housing. The study aims to finalize rental regulations in a way that ensures fairness and a balance between the interests of all involved. It seeks to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are fully addressed, and that fairness is established in rental dealings, beneficiaries are safeguarded against market volatility, a stable and attractive environment for investment is maintained.
CTV News
15-05-2025
- CTV News
Tenant evicted after removing art from communal laundry room, B.C. court hears
A Vancouver tenant who was evicted over removing art from the communal laundry room in his building has won the right to stay in his apartment – for now. B.C.'s highest court ruled on the dispute Wednesday, ordering a judicial review and a stay of the landlord's order of possession – finding the tenant had an 'arguable case' that the eviction was wrongful. Jonathan Petrov lives in a 21-unit building in the city's West End that was purchased by the current landlord Plan A Real Estate Services in 2024. 'The landlord wished to make changes to the building and began doing so. It removed a wishing well from the grounds of the building and announced that common areas would be redone in a 'Bollywood' theme,' Justice Harvey M. Groberman wrote in a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of B.C.'s Court of Appeal. 'It appears that the tenant found these changes and proposed changes disturbing.' The laundry room, the court heard, was not just a space for washing and drying clothes. 'There appears to have been a tradition in the building of tenants leaving books and art in the room for the enjoyment of other tenants,' the decision said. 'A witness described there being a 'longstanding 'give and take' communal approach' to the artwork, in which residents and local artists would leave art in the laundry room and could also take pieces of art that they liked.' The events that led to Petrov's eviction were set in motion in April of 2024, when the landlord noticed art had been removed. The landlord reported the missing art – estimated at 20 pieces – to police, and sent a notice to everyone in the building, according to the decision. Ultimately, Petrov would admit to police and the landlord that he had taken the art and put it in his storage locker – a fact he had already communicated to the majority of his neighbours in a group chat, the decision said. He returned it to the laundry room in July of 2024 and Petrov was served an eviction notice three months later, with the landlord citing theft as the reason. The art, the landlord argued, was stolen from him because it became his property when he bought the building. Petrov disagreed and disputed the eviction at the Residential Tenancy Branch arguing the art was 'the property of the tenants communally' and that he had not stolen it but rather 'acted to preserve it.' He also argued that even if what he did was theft, it was not serious enough to justify an eviction. The arbitrator at the RTB found that – regardless of Petrov's motives – his actions were 'illegal' and 'seriously jeopardizing for the landlord and other occupant's lawful rights,' the decision said, adding that an order of possession was granted. Petrov filed for a judicial review of that decision, seeking a stay of the order of possession pending the outcome. A B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed the application finding there was no case to be argued. 'She found that it was clear that the appellant did not personally own the art that he took, and that his actions were illegal,' the court of appeal decision said. 'She also found that the arbitrator's limited analysis of the seriousness of the appellant's actions was adequate to show that the actions were of sufficient concern to require termination of the tenancy.' Groberman, on appeal, noted several issues with the RTB arbitrator's original decision – including that the question of ownership of the art was never asked or answered. The arbitrator's decision also did not explain how the removal of the art 'seriously jeopardized a lawful interest of building occupants' and 'affected the security of building's occupants,' the judge wrote. The landlord cited 'illegal activity' as the ground for eviction, but the appeal court found the original decision did not adequately grapple with whether what Petrov did was illegal. 'It is apparent that the tenant had no right to simply take ownership of 20 pieces of art from the laundry room, but there is no finding that he did so,' the decision said. 'If it was accepted that the tenant's intentions were simply to assume temporary custody of the artwork in order to preserve it from destruction, however, it is not at all clear that his actions were illegal.' Further, even if the removal of the art was illegal – an illegal act in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for eviction, Groberman explained. The appeal court sent the matter back for judicial review, finding the lower court made a mistake in dismissing the application. 'The tenant's judicial review application was not so devoid of merit as to be unarguable,' Groberman wrote, sending the matter back to the lower court and ordering a three-month stay of the order of possession.
RNZ News
15-05-2025
- RNZ News
Auckland tenants ordered to pay for fire damage after rubbish blaze
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Photo: 123RF A tenant had no explanation for a rubbish fire at the West Auckland house she rented, which caused damage to windows and weatherboards, other than to suggest it was a "rough area" with "gang members" living nearby. However, the landlords suggested there was an obvious explanation for the fire at the Kelston house, as it happened hours after they'd emailed asking for a pile of rubbish to be removed. After the fire, Karlee Eileen Naomi Thompson and Sarge Rolly Te Tonga were taken to the Tenancy Tribunal by their landlords, who were granted name suppression, over damage caused at the rental property. In the recently released findings, the landlords made claims for rubbish removal and cleaning costs, and for damage caused by the rubbish fire. Two windows needed replacing, as well as weatherboards. The fire happened about 4pm. Contractors working nearby saw the fire and a person, known to live at the property, when it was ablaze. The tribunal adjudicator noted that arson was a serious crime that typically resulted in imprisonment in the event of conviction. "It is improbable that an unknown person without any motive would set fire to the rubbish pile," the adjudicator found. "It is more likely that one of the tenants or another occupier lit the fire in response to the landlords' request to get rid of the rubbish." Thompson denied responsibility for the fire but could not offer a plausible alternative explanation for what may have caused it, the decision said. She said that it was a "rough area" with "gang members living in the community". The adjudicator was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that "one of the tenants and/or one or more of their guests" lit the pile of rubbish next to the house. "In lighting the fire, that person knew that the house would inevitably be damaged," the adjudicator said. "I find on the balance of probabilities that the lighter of the fire caused the damage intentionally. Because the fire lighter was a tenant or an authorised guest, the tenants are liable for the cost of repair." One of the landlords had asked her insurer if it would cover the cost of the fire damage. However, after she told the insurer that one of the tenants lit the fire, the insurer advised it would not cover the event because it had been deliberate. The landlord's contractor charged $6037 to repair the damage. The adjudicator said the tribunal should return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The original windows were only four or five years old; the weatherboards were in good condition before the fire, but had not been painted for an indefinite number of years. "I consider I should apply depreciation at the rate of 10 percent, having regard to the age and condition of the windows and weatherboards at the start of the tenancy," the adjudicator said. The tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $5433.30 for the cost of repairing the damage. They also had to pay $460 for rubbish removal. Part of this was covered by the bond already lodged, which was $2800. The total amount left for the tenants to pay was $3120.30. - This story was first published by New Zealand Herald.
