Good- we're getting close to an answer to the whole question of tenants breaking a lease. Something that no poster so far has given a clear defintive legal answer.
Good- we're getting close to an answer to the whole question of tenants breaking a lease. Something that no poster so far has given a clear defintive legal answer.
I'm not sure why a tenant would sign a new lease which really only assures him that the landlord won't evict him even on the grounds allowed by Part IV (needing house for family, etc) but costs the tenant his right to terminate the lease with appropriate notice.
the tenant is "protected"
I would dispute this. Tenant's have the protection of the Act.The only thing protecting tenants in this country is a lease. .
I would dispute this. Tenant's have the protection of the Act.
yes, yes knuttel I get the moral aspect. It's the legal point I'm unsure about .
According to a" Guide to Residential Tenancies Act from Dept Environment"
" tenancies will be terminated by means of a notice of termination regardless of why the termination is happening...Tenants need not give a reason for terminating."
Periods of notice are then listed e.g.1-2 years -42 days notice.
So, it is clear there that a tenant can legally break a lease....
Now, I gather this does not apply to a fixed term lease. That is why i asked the question - can a landlord keep on renewing a fixed term lease and thus avoid the RTA rules. You replied that you remembered a case where it was ruled a landlord cannot do so.
Sorry -but still confused -there seem to be two different answers on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?