When a landlord rents property to a tenant to live in, the landlord is obligated not to take any actions that would make the property unfit or materially less fit for that purpose (to live in/residential purposes).
This obligation is called the covenant of non-derogation from grant, and it is different from other obligations we discussed previously, such as the covenant that a property is fit for human habitation and the covenant for quiet and peaceable enjoyment.
The covenant requires a landlord to refrain from taking any actions that would interfere with the tenant’s use of the property for residential purposes. This includes managing any adjoining property he (the landlord) owns in a manner that renders the rented property unfit or less fit for residential purposes.
Thus, if a landlord owns lots 1 and 2 and rents lot 1 for residential purposes, he should not rent lot 2 to store toxic chemicals or any other industrial purpose that can affect his tenant’s ability to live at lot 1.
Additionally, suppose a landlord has a two-flat building. In that case, he should not rent the top flat to operate a bar or club and the lower flat for residential purposes if those operations would make the lower flat unfit or materially less fit to live in.
In both examples mentioned above, a court must look at all available facts to decide whether the landlord’s actions have rendered the rented residential property unfit or materially less fit for use as a residence.
I will provide an example that may be relevant to many tenants in Guyana.
Let us say that A has an apartment complex at Lot 1, which he has rented to several tenants. A also owns the property at Lot 2, which adjoins Lot 1. A is developing an additional apartment complex on Lot 2 and has started to drive piles, operate heavy machinery, and engage in construction that causes heavy vibrations. As a result of this work, the apartment complex at Lot 1 was damaged, suffering cracks, bulges and warps to the building, including the foundation. This activity can make the structure unsafe to live in, interfering with the tenant’s ability to use the property for its rented purpose.
Additionally, the work itself, including the constant movement of machinery, the vibrations, and access to and from the property caused by the work, can violate this obligation if sufficient measures are not taken to safeguard the tenant’s use of the rented property.
Options if a landlord breaches this obligation
Tenants have a few options if the landlord breaches this obligation. The tenant may speak to the landlord to get them to stop the ongoing interference and rectify any issues already caused, such as continuing activity or damage to structural integrity.
The other option is to take legal action against the landlord. This is the most effective, though more expensive. A tenant may even be justified in leaving the property for different accommodations since a breach of this obligation breaches the lease and frees the tenant from any obligations thereunder (perhaps except the obligation to pay any rent owed before these issues developed).
