Under Water Centre (Pty) v Beau Vallon Properties (CA 18/2008) [2009] SCSC 146 (2 March 2009)

Under Water Centre (Pty) v Beau Vallon Properties (CA 18/2008) [2009] SCSC 146 (2 March 2009)

The Rent Board misdirected itself in law and fact by accepting the lessor's requirement for the premises as genuine when it was for the benefit of a third party, misallocating the burden of proof regarding statutory tenancy and hardship, and failing to properly consider the balance of hardship; therefore, the order of ejectment could not stand.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 146
Parties
Appellant: Under Water Centre (Pty); Respondent: Beau Vallon Properties
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
2 March 2009
Case Number
CA 18/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Tenancy, Ejectment, Hardship Balance, Reasonable Requirement, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Tenancy Law Statutory Tenancy Ejectment Hardship Balance Reasonable Requirement Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Under Water Centre (Pty)

Appellant

Beau Vallon Properties

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lessor's requirement for the premises justified ejectment under the applicable tenancy law
  2. 2 Whether the Rent Board misdirected itself on the law regarding statutory tenancy and hardship
  3. 3 Whether the requirement for the premises was genuinely for the lessor's business or for a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The Rent Board misdirected itself in law and fact by accepting the lessor's requirement for the premises as genuine when it was for the benefit of a third party, misallocating the burden of proof regarding statutory tenancy and hardship, and failing to properly consider the balance of hardship; therefore, the order of ejectment could not stand.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • order of ejectment set aside
  • appellant entitled to costs