Upon receipt of an application for assignment or sublease, the landlord must respond in writing to any application for assignment or sublease within a “reasonable time” and, if applicable, state the reasons for its refusal (section 1(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1988). Following NCR Ltd v. Riverland Portfolio No. 1 Ltd (No. 2) [2005] 2 EGLR 42, the courts will take a reasonable approach to determining a reasonable period of time: essentially, the landlord should act as quickly as possible in the circumstances. If, in a jurisdiction that follows the English rule, the landlord does not provide for beneficial ownership at the beginning of the lease, the tenant can do one of two things. He can cancel the rental agreement and recover any damage suffered by the tenant as a result of the landlord`s failure to deliver the property. Or the tenant can maintain the lease and withhold rent during the period when he or she has not been able to move to the property. North Carolina law involves a number of covenants in leases, one of which is the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Although such agreements may be expressed in North Carolina without any provision to the contrary, there is an implied agreement that the tenant must have quiet and peaceful ownership of the leased premises during the rental period, including easements and accessories necessary and essential to the enjoyment of the leased premises.
WEBSTER`S REAL ESTATE LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA, § 12.11 (2021). In other words, there are three options regarding the rental treatment of the Pact of Peaceful Enjoyment: (i) an implicit covenant where the lease is silent on such an agreement, (ii) an explicit covenant that may condition, limit or otherwise describe the extent of the silent enjoyment covenant, and (iii) an explicit rejection of a silent enjoyment covenant. We consider three things when dealing with a lease dispute that involves a quiet enjoyment pact: (i) the wording of the lease in relation to the commitment, (ii) who would have violated the covenant, and (iii) how the covenant would have been violated. Constructive eviction occurs when a tenant leaves the rental property due to the owner`s behavior, which significantly impairs the tenant`s agreed purpose and prevents the property from being in a rental state. However, if the leased premises or part thereof are destroyed or damaged for any of the reasons referred to in paragraph 3, in so far as they become unfit for operation and use by the lessee, the rent and the contribution to be paid by the lessee at the costs of such premises shall be reduced to a fair and equitable level of destruction or damage. up to these premises – the tenant will not modify any building that includes or is part of the rented premises without the consent of the owner. Since these implied commitments protect tenants` rights, tenants would generally want to invoke a breach of these commitments if a landlord`s actions affect the tenant`s use of the space. However, the case shows that, while these obligations are implicit in any lease to the tenant, the principles of these agreements may limit the scope of tenant protection, since these principles generally state that the tenant must take the premises subject to the existing use of adjacent premises.
or for uses that would be in the reasonable consideration of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the rental agreement. Nevertheless, it is ultimately a question of fact whether the actions of a landlord do indeed constitute a material interference with the tenant`s use of the premises. The Tenant will not commit the crime of voluntary waste in relation to the rented premises and will not allow any of the Tenant`s representatives, contractors or guests to commit it. The Bill provides that any dispute arising out of the new implied agreement (i.e., if the parties cannot agree on a reasonable relationship) will be submitted to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1996. However, this requirement is not intended to prevent the use of other procedures, such as mediation or expert opinion. There is an implicit common law agreement regarding the furnished tenancy of residential property that the premises are suitable for human habitation when rented (but not retrospectively – see Sarson v. Roberts [1895] 2 QB 395). .
