BCC 399/2007

The original dispute involved a request to evict a tenant from two hotels for breaching the tenancy agreement. A key issue was whether the court of urgent affairs had a mandate. If the judge concluded a subjective investigation was needed it would have no mandate.

Background

A landlord filed a case against a tenant before the court of urgent affairs requesting the tenant to vacate two rented hotels because he violated the tenancy agreement.

The court ruled that the tenant should vacate the two rented hotels.

The tenant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal and requested the court to add a new respondent to the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal of the original claimant and the added one.

Decision

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 The court of cassation repealed the ruling and referred the case to the court of appeal.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