In its January 2016 decision, the high court granted the petition brought by one of the eight tenants who were evicted from a rented business on the basis of a trial court judgment. The other seven tenants had not objected to the lower court's decision. The court ordered that the tenant be allowed to return to his unit within 30 days.
This was the first time the high court has given priority to an eviction case. A few years ago, it was reported that the court was likely to start hearing such cases earlier to prevent further deterioration of housing conditions. However, this did not happen due to concerns about how to pay for attorney fees without reducing the amount of assistance received by other tenants.
Since then, there have been more evictions, resulting in overcrowding and poor maintenance conditions. In addition, many residents are now being asked to move because owners want to redevelop their properties.
Priority was given to eviction cases in order to protect people's rights before any agreement could be reached with the owner. If someone was unable to find alternative accommodation, they would need to be able to return to their unit within 30 days in order to avoid having to pay rent until another arrangement could be made.
People who use drugs may be evicted for failing drug tests. Drug testing is required for residency permits as well.
The eviction order was issued by the High Court on the grounds that the landlord had legitimately dissolved the lease agreement after the tenant fell behind on his rental payments. The landlord had given the renter an opportunity to correct its breach of nonpayment, but the tenant had declined.
Last updated on February 8, 2019. A person or corporation who owes you money must first file a lawsuit in court before they can win a judgment against you. If you fail to respond to the action, the court will file an automatic judgment against you, which is known as a default judgment. Of course, even if you submit a response, you might still lose the case.
Despite this, the circuit court issued a possession order, which was affirmed by Cheema-Grubb J on appeal to the High Court EWHC 24 (QB). In affirming the circuit court's decision, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for it to find that Mr. Khan had been guilty of harassment within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Mr. Khan subsequently applied for a review of the possession order at the high court. His application was dismissed by Blake J who held that there were no new facts or arguments that had not previously been considered by Cheema-Grubb J and therefore further review was unnecessary.
In dismissing the application, Blake J noted that although Mr. Khan claimed that he did not cause Mrs. Ahmed harm, she had given evidence to the contrary. For example, she had testified that she felt frightened when she returned home after meeting with him, and that she had moved out of her house because of his actions.
Furthermore, Blake J rejected Mr. Khan's argument that Mrs. Ahmed's allegations of harassment were time-barred. He stated that the protection afforded by the Act is not limited to acts committed on particular dates or within certain periods of time. Rather, it extends to any act of a similar nature which causes fear of violence in another person.
Judges will postpone the execution of writs of restitution that property owners can seek and send to police enforcement to force the relocation of a renter, according to the court's ruling. Tenants will be required to produce evidence of their current incapacity to pay their rent to the court. If they cannot, then the judge will set a payment plan for them to meet their obligations.
In other words, judges can delay evictions of tenants who are unable to pay their rent. But they can't stop them entirely - the owner still has the right to pursue eviction if the tenant does eventually come up with the money.
The court's decision is expected to reduce litigation between landlords and tenants, because it will prevent people from being thrown out of their homes before they have a chance to present their cases.
Landlords are not required to accept payments from tenants who are in default of their rental agreements. If they refuse, then the tenant can be given more time to pay or a reminder that his/her lease will be terminated if he/she cannot meet his/her financial obligations.
In conclusion, judges can delay evictations of tenants who are unable to pay their rent.