Imagine renting out your property and discovering a strong curry odour upon its return. This case delves into the intersection of cultural cooking practices and tenant rights. So, can a landlord dictate what a tenant cooks or hold them liable for cooking smells?
Case Background:
The landlord filed a application due to a persistent curry odour in the property after the tenants vacated. To address this, the landlord rented an ozone machine to eliminate the smell. The tenants countered, arguing that they are entitled to cook their cultural foods and suggesting that the claim was racially motivated. They also noted that the landlord’s prior inspections never mentioned any odour issues.
Legal Authorities:
Definition of Quiet Enjoyment: The word “quiet” is used in the sense of “peaceful”, or “without interference”, not in the acoustic sense. The word “enjoyment” refers not to deriving pleasure from possession, but to being able to experience the full benefit of the right of possession. The phrase therefore translates to “without interference with possession.” [Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499]
Section 38 RTA: Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Subsection (1): Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person acting on behalf of the landlord or having superior title.
Subsection (2): The landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Subsection (3): Any interference that amounts to harassment of the tenant is deemed an unlawful act.
Landlord’s Response:
The landlord insisted the odour was problematic and had not been detected during previous inspections because the tenants kept the windows open. The landlord argued that the premises should be returned in a condition free of strong odours.
So, what the outcome? And what are the key takeaways?
