Laws and regulations are instrumental for governing the society and ensuring that people have a smooth relationship. Tenancy law is one of such laws and regulations that govern the relationship between the landlord and tenant. The case study highlights that Larry has leased his premises to Rodger, but he notices that the roof has a problem while inspecting it. On informing Larry, he denies that there were leaks in the past. Upon Roger requesting him to repair it, Larry remains reluctant, and the roof becomes more damaged during the rainy season. Roger is infuriated by this behavior and throws a baseball bat to the wall after Larry takes a long period to respond. This paper seeks to deeply explore the responsibilities and rights of the tenant and landlord as an effort to establish the level both parties should be accountable for the damages caused.
Residential landlords are the individuals who own property or businesses and rent them out for money. These may include condos, apartments as well as houses. Residential tenants pay landlords rent in order to reside within these properties. The landlord and tenant need to get into a signed agreement with a description of the rights and responsibilities of each party. The Landlord-Tenant Act provides these rights and responsibilities. According to the Tenancy Law, the tenant is entitled to various responsibilities. The first responsibility is that the tenant should pay the rent agreed within the time that has been agreed (Ástmarsson, Jensen, & Maslesa, 2013) . In addition, they should deposit some amount as security for the charges that the agreement outlines. Some of these charges could be utility costs and collection of garbage. Despite the need for the tenant to pay the rent in time, they can withhold rent in situations when the landlord fails to carry out his duties as the law requires. Also, the tenant should ensure that the condition of the property remains in great condition. To this end, they will be responsible for incurring costs related to any damages caused to the premise after they get into the agreement with the landlord.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The tenant also has the right to privacy as well as peaceful property possession. After the property is rented, the tenant is allowed to use it under the law. The landlord is only allowed to get in when they want to carry out inspection or repairs. However, he still has to give the tenant a notice and ensure that the tenant is not inconvenienced. A notice can only become unnecessary when there is an emergency. Whereas the tenant can withhold the rent, they should notify the landlord about seven days prior to issuing them a notice of any issue that they feel should be fixed (Rasila, 2010). The tenant is also not allowed to spend the rent on repairs of the house without notifying the landlord. Before vacating the house, they are expected to provide a reasonable notice in order for the landlord to prepare any of the security deposits that had been issued at first. They also need to clear all the outstanding utility bills and bear costs for any damages that may have been caused to the houses. The landlord is not expected to withhold the deposit in case there are no substantial damages done to the house. Also, in case the landlord needs to renovate their houses, they should provide a reasonable notice that can enable the tenant to vacate. In case the tenant violates the stipulated rules and regulations, the landlord has the right to issue a notice for vacation. The notice should be reasonable enough to allow the tenant to find another place that they can vacate.
Legal Duty for Damages
The mitigation duty implies that even in case tenants do not want to repair an item, they are still responsible for reporting damage in order for the landlord to repair it. Prior to Larry Landlord and Roger Renter getting into a contract, Renter had enquired whether the roof was leaking. The landlord confirmed that there had been no leak and that he had no information about any leaks. The contract was signed basing on the information provided by the landlord that the roof was in great condition. Rogers noticed that the roof commenced leaking during the rain storm. This suggests that the leak may have been caused by the rain storm. When the landlord was informed about it, he had a legal obligation to ensure that it was repaired (Rasila, 2010). The landlord ought to have agreed with the tenant regarding the convenient time for the repair. Despite further leaks, the landlord was not kind enough to repair the roof. A week prior to the due date of the rent, the tenant’s items were further destroyed by another leak. Because of the landlord’s rude response, he became angry and threw a bat on the wall, thus leading to damages. It is the landlord’s obligation to repair the house because he had been duly informed but decided against doing anything. At the same time, Rogers ought to have devised mitigation measures for reducing the damage that the rain causes, but he did not have any legal obligation to do so. From legal perspective, in case he decided to repair the roof, he would have to be refunded.
The description above suggests that the tenant and landlord had the legal obligation to mitigate damages. This is because the tenant and landlord played some role in the damages. For example, the owner of the property neglected his duty to respond to the repair notice as had been given by Roger. Negligence led to the damage of Roger’s items by the leak. The landlord is liable to cater for the damages caused by the leak (Ástmarsson, et al., 2013) . Despite Roger being angry, he should have been responsible not to cause further damage to the house, but follow the due process. He ought to have followed the legal procedure for making the landlord to pay for his negligence. Roger can sue Larry for damages while the landlord also has the right to sue Roger for damaging the wall socket.
Legal Grounds for Roger Eviction
One of the facts of the case is that Larry is responsible for the reaction by Rogers and the house’s damage. Roger has a legal ground for evicting any tenant who caused damage to the property. Rogers’ eviction could be disadvantageous to Larry because he will incur more costs repairing the house and getting another tenant. Both parties have legal implications because of damaging the house (Rasila, 2010). Larry is particularly at fault because of negligence of his responsibilities. Also, the reactions by Roger have made him to be in a tricky situation as he could be held to account for his actions. Because of damaging the house, Roger has a legal ground for evicting him. Evicting Roger will compel Larry to spend money in repairing the house. He is in a tricky situation because Roger is not an ideal tenant. Since Larry’s best interest is to get a tenant who can remain in house for a long period, evicting Roger immediately may not be the long-term solution. From this perspective, he should not evict him immediately. In addition, Roger does not have a history of damaging houses. This was only the first instance of house damage, and it could be argued that it was because of the anger that he had. Larry also needs to focus on the house repair to deter any future disagreements (Rasila, 2010). In case he fulfils his responsibilities, he will resolve his challenge with Roger and make sure that he stays longer in the house. A critical aspect that Larry needs to consider prior to acting is that Rogers is a great client who has always adhered to all the rules and regulations, including the payment of rent on time. As a mediator, I would advise the landlord to resolve all outstanding issues and ask the tenant to continue fulfilling his obligations.
Roger and Legal Obligation
Roger has a legal obligation of paying for the damages as they are directly attributed to his action rather than mere accident. Because the damage was caused by Roger as resentment against Larry’s reluctance to repair the house, a court of law would treat the issues as independent. The failure by Larry to repair the leak needs to have been reported to the concerned authorities. Alternatively, Roger could have easily left the house and searched for another one. The damages caused provided Larry with an opportunity to sue Roger, despite having been the cause of the anger that Roger exhibited. Before occupancy, it is assumed that the two filled a checklist that ascertained that the apartment’s condition was in great shape (Radin, 2017). Consequently, there is likelihood that Roger will incur for the damages by deductions or directly from the security deposits. Contrarily, Larry is also responsible or legally liable for the direct damages that he caused to the tenant. He cannot deny that Roger reported the issue to him on various occasions but he failed to address it.
Roger is obligated to fix the damages to the house’s wall. The main reason is that the contract mandates the tenant to leave the house in the same conditions that they found it. Larry also has to incur for the damages to Roger’s things. It is because the damages resulted from his irresponsibility to fix the roof promptly. The tenant act mandates landlords to ensure that the tenant lives in a safe and livable place (Hatch, 2017). Rogers also had the alternative of repairing the roof and asking for a refund, but failed to do so. However, the main challenge would have been whether the landlord would have been willing to refund him. From a general perspective, it could be argued that Rogers had the obligation to pay for damages caused, while Larry did not have any obligation for the damages caused to the items of Roger because of the leak.
References
Ástmarsson, B., Jensen, P. A., & Maslesa, E. (2013). Sustainable renovation of residential buildings and the landlord/tenant dilemma. Energy Policy , 63 , 355-362.
Hatch, M. E. (2017). Statutory Protection for Renters: Classification of State Landlord–Tenant Policy Approaches. Housing Policy Debate , 27 (1), 98-119.
Radin, M. J. (2017). Reconsidering the rule of law. In The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers (pp. 37-76). London: Rutledge.
Rasila, H. (2010). Customer relationship quality in landlord-tenant relationship. Property Management , 28 (2), 80-92.
