Meera Lebbe Marikar vs Bell – clr volume 2 page 094

In the case between the landlord (plaintiff) and the tenant (defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether a landlord may lawfully lock out a tenant to enforce a lien for unpaid rent without judicial authorization, or whether such conduct constitutes an unlawful eviction. The holding determined that, although a landlord possesses a tacit hypothec for rent, exclusion of the tenant by locking the premises without court sanction amounts to eviction, justifying lease termination and damages. This reaffirmed the principle that unilateral re-entry and padlocking by the landlord go beyond the lawfully recognized remedies, drawing on Roman-Dutch and English legal authorities, and clarified that only judicial recourse permits retaking of possession. The decision underscores that substantive