Can a Landlord Let out His Rented Apartment to a Prospective Tenant Wishing to Pay Higher Rent than One Paid by the Current Tenant

CASE TITLE:  ADIMEGWU v. BALA & ANOR: (2022) LPELR-57442(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  8TH APRIL, 2022

JUSTICES:  PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA

COURT DIVISION:  ABUJA

PRACTICE AREA:  TENANCY/RECOVERY OF PREMISES

FACTS:

The Appellant is a yearly tenant in the Respondent’s house. The fulcrum of the contention of the Appellant at the trial Court was that, he is entitled to the first option of renewal of his tenancy agreement with the Defendants as a sitting tenant, and that the Respondents cannot recover possession over the house for the purpose of renting same out to a new tenant without first giving him the opportunity to renew his tenancy.

The Respondents in their defence claimed that the tenancy has ended after the termination of the tenancy agreement and that the refusal of the Plaintiff to leave the house constitutes a block to their means of livelihood and urged the trial Court to hold that the tenancy has ended by virtue of effluxion of time.

Delivering his judgment, the learned trial Judge resolved all issues for determination against the Appellant and granted the prayers of the Respondents.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The appeal was determined upon consideration of the issues thus:

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court?
2. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Respondents have fulfilled the condition precedent in instituting the counter-claim?
3. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant’s tenancy had expired and must be determined by statutory notices?
4. Whether the Respondent’s desire to rent the demised premises to other tenant other than the Appellant is valid in law?
5. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is at variance with the evidence adduced before, the Court?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS

Learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the desire to let the house to another tenant who was willing to pay higher rent is not one of the grounds legally recognized for recovery of premises. He argued that a landlord who seeks possession must establish one or more grounds recognized by law and once the factors are absent, the Court will not order yielding up of possession by the Tenant. Learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the Respondents were obviously out to overreach the Plaintiff by wrestling possession from him for the sole purpose of renting same to another person and that the Landlord has not shown that he was acting in good faith.

In response, the Learned argued that the Appellant was guilty of breach of covenants and holding over of rent which he said has occasioned hardship to the Respondents and his fellow tenants. He submitted that there is no denying the fact that the tenancy agreement provided for option to renew but on conditions to be fulfilled as reserved in the agreement, and that the Respondents have every right to recover possession from the Appellant as option to renew can only be granted to a tenant who performs his obligations.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the appeal was partly allowed.

RATIO

1. LANDLORD AND TENANT – RECOVERY OF PREMISES: Whether a landlord can let his property to a prospective tenant who is willing to pay a higher rent than one being paid by tenant in occupation; requirement of law thereto

“There is no law that prevents a landlord from letting his property to a prospective tenant who is willing to pay higher rent if it is done within the confines of the law. Again, what the law enjoins him to do where there is a tenant in the premises he seeks to let to another tenant for whatever reason, is for the landlord to bring to an end the existing tenancy agreement between him (Landlord) and the Tenant occupying the premises, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and as stipulated by law. A tenant cannot dictate to Landlord who to give his property to occupy as a tenant.” – Per IGE, J.C.A.