Ahriff v. Razik – sllr 1985 volume 1 page 162

In the case between the plaintiff (elder brother) and the defendant (younger brother), the court addressed whether the notice given by the plaintiff under section 18 of the Rent Restriction Act to continue the tenancy was valid, and if the defendant’s continued occupation created rights amounting to sub-tenancy or joint tenancy. It was held that only a party who gives proper notice under section 18 may be recognized as the tenant. The defendant’s occupation was found to be that of a licensee only, not protected under the Act, and the plaintiff’s appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, reaffirming that tenancy rights under the Rent Restriction Act cannot be claimed absent strict compliance with statutory requirements. The decision relied on statutory interpretation of section 18, empha