Introduction

[1] The core issue in these four appeals which were heard together is whether the landlord ought to be liable when the tenant's quiet and peaceful possession of the premises is disrupted by the acts of a party who was not acting under the authority of the landlord.

[2] Finding that the landlord should not be liable, this Court had allowed all the four appeals which resulted in each of the Appellants (defendants) succeeding in their respective applications to have the action taken against them struck out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC "). This is the grounds for the decision and the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Court below.

Salient facts

[3] The first plaintiff is the tenant of premises used as a restaurant under five separate tenancy agreements all dated 12 April 2019 ("5 TA"). The second plaintiff suing under its business name of Flower Drum Restaurant is