Rental experiences, tears

During these discussions, the tenant reminded us that prior to moving into the current property, he had expressed interest in another property we owned and asked whether he could be transferred to that house instead.

That request was not new. Before moving into the current property, he had indeed shown interest in one of our other units.

At the time, however, that property was still under preparation and not ready for rental.

This had been clearly communicated to him both before and after he moved in. Nothing had changed.

The property remained unavailable.

More importantly, no advance rent payment had been made in respect of that second property, despite an agreement having been signed.

The understanding, though not reduced into writing, was that advance payment would enable us to complete furnishing and make the property ready for occupation. That payment never came.

Around this same period, we received a formal letter from the tenant’s lawyers requesting the execution and enforcement of what they referred to as a “second contract.”

In that letter, they claimed it was binding on us to release the second property to their client.

This position ignored a fundamental fact: the tenant had breached that agreement from the outset by failing to make the advance rent payment expressly stipulated in the contract.

We responded by reiterating that the property was not ready and that the contractual conditions precedent had not been met.

After that response, there was no formal reply; no objection, no request for renegotiation, and no attempt to clarify terms. Silence followed.

It was shortly after this silence that we received yet another letter again, from the tenant’s lawyers.

That was the moment we realised this was no longer a simple landlord-tenant disagreement. It had entered a different phase altogether.

And that was when the real drama began.

Part Three will take us into what happens when lawyers step in—and why landlords must be prepared long before that letter arrives.

Situation

By this point, the situation had clearly shifted.

What had started as notices and conversations was now being framed as a legal dispute. 

In their letter, the tenant’s lawyers alleged that we were in breach of the tenancy agreement, arguing that the tenancy was for a fixed one-year period and could not be interrupted as we had indicated.

They insisted that our notice to vacate was unlawful and premature.

We disagreed—firmly.

In our response, we made it clear that the issue was no longer about renewal or timelines alone.

The tenancy relationship had been fundamentally compromised.

We outlined, in plain terms, why the tenant’s conduct amounted to serious breaches of the agreement and why continuation was no longer tenable.

First, we addressed the incident that occurred on the premises.

What took place went far beyond a simple disagreement or misunderstanding.

It involved individuals connected to the tenant, resulted in physical injury to a guest, and led to arrests—including that of one of our own staff members who was on duty at the property.

The disturbance was significant, disruptive, and entirely inconsistent with the peaceful residential use for which the property had been let.

We also explained that the incident caused serious concern for the safety, reputation, and quiet enjoyment of the property—both for us as owners and for neighbouring occupants.

This was not a private matter occurring behind closed doors; it spilled into the compound and attracted external attention.

That alone altered the nature of the tenancy.
Second, we reiterated the issue of unauthorised use.

The conversion of the main living area into a podcast studio had been discovered during a routine inspection.

This was done without consent and in direct contradiction to the agreed residential purpose of the property.

Altering the use of a property is not a minor technicality—it changes risk exposure, wear and tear, noise levels, and legal responsibility.

In our response, we emphasised that these issues were not raised lightly, nor were they manufactured to justify a decision already made.

They were real developments that materially affected the tenancy relationship.

For that reason, we restated our position: the tenancy would not be renewed, and termination was justified based on the tenant’s own actions.

We also made it clear that, despite the escalating tension, our intention was not to act vindictively.

We expressed openness to a cooperative handover and indicated willingness to engage constructively to avoid unnecessary escalation—provided the process remained lawful and respectful.

What became evident at this stage was something many landlords only learn too late: once lawyers are involved, the issue is no longer just about who is right. It becomes about interpretation, leverage, process, and endurance.

And this was only the beginning.

What followed would take us beyond letters and legal arguments—into institutions, enforcement bodies, and a much longer road than we had anticipated.

Part Four will reveal how this dispute moved from paper to practice—and why many landlords underestimate what it truly takes to regain possession.

Fact

After we responded to the tenant’s lawyers and reiterated our position, another letter followed.

By this time, an important fact could not be ignored: the initial four months’ rent advance had already expired.

The tenant was still in occupation, but no new rent had been paid.

In their next correspondence, the tenant’s lawyers demanded that we grant their client an additional three months to search for alternative accommodation.

We objected to this request in writing.

From our perspective, the tenancy had already run its course, notice had been properly served, and there was no legal or contractual basis for such an extension.

Shortly after, another letter arrived, this time with a noticeably softer tone.

The lawyers acknowledged receipt of our eviction notice and admitted that their client was in the process of securing alternative accommodation.

However, they argued that the timeline we had provided was too short and requested a one-month extension to allow for an “orderly” relocation.

They emphasised that the tenant was willing to comply with the notice and proposed to pay rent for the additional month.

Acting in good faith, we agreed to this request—on one clear condition: the tenant would pay rent for the extra month in advance.

That payment never came.

Instead, the tenant proposed that we apply the security deposit to cover the additional month’s rent.

This directly contradicted the tenancy agreement, which clearly defined the purpose of the security deposit and the conditions under which it could be applied or refunded.

We rejected this proposal and communicated our position clearly.

What followed was deliberate silence.

No payment was made.

Repeated reminders were ignored.

The tenant remained in occupation while rent arrears continued to accumulate.

At this point, two additional months of rent were outstanding, yet possession of the property had not been surrendered.

We then decided to make enquiries at the Rent Control Department to understand the way forward.

This is often the first institutional step for landlords facing default and non-compliance.

At the same time, we sought expert legal guidance.

Our lawyers advised that, given the circumstances, the matter should be taken directly to court rather than proceeding through Rent Control.

As a result, we limited our interaction with Rent Control to enquiries only and did not formally file a case there.

We therefore made the decision to instruct our lawyers to pursue the matter through the courts.

It was not a decision taken lightly.

Court action is costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining.

But by this stage, it was the only viable path left to protect our rights and recover possession of the property. 

What we did not yet realise was just how long and complex that path would be.

(Part Five will take us inside the court process and why many landlords underestimate what “going to court” truly means).