Burale v Kher (Tribunal Case E150, E151, E152, E153, E154, E155, E156, E157, E072, E073, E074, E205, E206, E207 & E226 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEBPRT 373 (KLR) (9 April 2024) (Ruling)
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Case number
- 373
- Citation
- [2024] KEBPRT 373 (KLR)
- Decided
- 9 April 2024
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLandlord and Tenant DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramHON. PATRICIA MAY
Holding
The tenancy is a controlled tenancy, and the Landlord can only alter the terms within the provisions of the Landlords and Tenants Act.
Facts
The Tenant, Burale, claimed that the Landlord, Kher, illegally terminated her tenancy and sought restraining orders and ex-parte orders.
Issues
- Whether the tenancy was a controlled tenancy
- Whether the Tenant has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim of receiving a verbal notice to terminate the tenancy
Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the tenancy was a controlled tenancy and that the Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of a verbal notice.
Outcome
The complaint is settled in the terms of the ruling.
Orders
- The tenancy is a controlled tenancy
- The tenants' status as protected tenants is recognized
- The Landlord can only alter the terms within the provisions of the Act
- Each party shall bear their own costs
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Landlords and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act Cap 301
- Landlords and Tenants Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…