BCC 367/2006

This case involved a request to the court of urgent affairs to evict a tenant who had not left a shop at the end of the tenancy. The fact the landlord had not filed the case immediately after the end of the tenancy agreement did not mean there was a lack of urgency as the tenant was still staying in the shop.

Background

Some landlords filed a case against a tenant before the court of urgent affairs requesting the eviction of a tenant from a rented shop. The landlords said that the tenant had rented the shop for one year and he refused to vacate the shop after the end of the tenancy agreement.

The court ruled that the tenant should vacate the rented shop.

The tenant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court dismissed the appealed ruling and said that the court of urgent affairs had no mandate to consider the case.

Decision