Pellisier v Pillay (63 of 2006) [2010] SCSC 32 (7 February 2010)

The lease agreement entered into by Mr Pillay with Mr Pellisier on 30th January 2006 was invalid as a prior valid lease existed between Mr Chetty and the Appellant; therefore, the Respondent could not claim rent or arrears based on the subsequent lease.

Citation: [2010] SCSC 32
Parties: Appellant: Victor Pellisier; Respondent: Subramanium Pillay
Court: Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Seychelles
Judgment Date: 7 February 2010
Case Number: 63 of 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal upheld
Legal Topics: Eviction, Arrears of Rent, Validity of Lease, Power of Attorney
Source Language: English

Landlord and Tenant Eviction Arrears of Rent Validity of Lease Power of Attorney

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Victor Pellisier

Appellant

Subramanium Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Respondent was entitled to claim rent and arrears from the Appellant based on the lease agreement dated 30th January 2006 (P1)
2 Whether the lease agreement between Mr Pillay and Mr Pellisier was valid given the existence of a prior lease between Mr Chetty and the Appellant
3 Whether the Rent Board erred in its order in favour of the Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

Order of the Rent Board delivered on 1st July 2008 set aside
Petition filed by the Respondent in the Rent Board dated 14th October 2006 dismissed with costs