A notice of termination issued by a landlord who argued he should not have to live in a “lesser property while renting out a superior one” has been deemed invalid by a Residential Tenancies Board tribunal.
George Adegbite, who sought to terminate the tenancy, claiming he required the house for his family, said although he owned three other properties in Drogheda, Co Louth, the house in Termon Abbey was “the most expensive”.
Mr Adegbite argued that he is entitled to choose where he wishes to reside. He said if his tenant, Sandra Otobore Itobore, had been living in one of his other rented properties, “he would have left her there”.
However, he described the semi-detached four-bedroom house, which he purchased in 2021, as being “superior in quality and location”, one which has a “gated entrance.”
READ MORE
He told the tribunal that he had been living at the property since his tenant left in August 2024, describing it as “larger and more expensive” than his prior home, a three-bedroom property in a different estate.
Mr Adegbite argued that the notice of termination was valid and served correctly, telling the tribunal that “no external authority may dictate his personal housing decisions,” according to a published tribunal report.
He also claimed the €1,750 in rent paid monthly by Ms Otobore Itobore was “significantly below” the market rate, which he put at €2,400, claiming this resulted in a loss of €18,000.
Given this loss, he argued it would be “inequitable” to order him to pay damages.
Representing Ms Otobore Itobore, Noel Connolly of the housing charity Threshold, claimed Mr Adegbite’s actions were “motivated by greed” and the dispute arose primarily because of his “insistence on achieving a higher rent.”
Ms Otobore Itobore claimed Mr Adegbite attempted to increase her rent, and when she declined, he issued a notice of termination in February 2024.
Ms Otobore Itobore, who said she was pregnant at the time, told the tribunal that her decision to leave in August 2024 was not voluntary but was made “under duress,” claiming her former landlord engaged in “persistent and intimidating conduct.”
She claimed “repeated calling and messaging” from Mr Adegbite created an atmosphere of “fear and coercion”, adding that her autistic son was affected by the stress and refused to attend school.
Deeming the notice invalid, the tribunal said Mr Adegbite’s evidence, in which he preferred the property over others, “does not support a genuine need for occupation.”
It found Mr Adegbite’s primary motive was not a genuine requirement for the house, “but rather a pretext to seek a higher rent.”
As issuing an invalid notice in itself does not give rise to damages, and accepting Mr Adegbite has moved into the property while finding that his former tenant voluntarily left, the tribunal awarded no damages.
