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 emphasized 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 realize 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.
0 Comments