landlord changed his mind after deal

A few months ago a friend's landlord offered to extend the lease with an increase but a few months later changed his mind and gave 2 months' notice to ask the tenant to leave. The landlord most probably wants a lot more $. What could a tenant do in such a case? Sue the landlord?

If nothing signed then I can' t see why he can't withdraw his offer. Speak to your lawyer but suing is expensive.

Its my understanding that once the fixed term tenancy expires, if the tenant continues to pay rent and the landlord continues to accept it, even without a signed agreement, this is known under hong kong law as "tenancy at will". Basically its a month by month "implied" contractual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, meaning the landlord consents to the tenant "holding over" (remaining within the premises). Either party can give notice to terminate the contract within 30 days (i think), or they can freely negotiate a renewal of the tenancy agreement.

The lease was a standard one for 2 years (1st year being fixed). The 2 year lease is coming to an end so no 'holding over' if i've understood liebster correctly.


The offer to renew was by email even though no contract was signed.


My friend is willing to pay the new rent in the landlord's offer but if the landlord really wants him out and if my friend refuses to move, what will happen?

Since 2004 in Hong Kong there is no longer security of tenancy so I think the 'tenancy at will' argument is outdated unless it is specifically referred to in the contract. I'm not a lawyer but if there is no signed tenancy agreement then there is no tenancy agreement. Basically your friend hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Loyd,


I don't believe that is correct. According to the EAA publications guide:



http://www.eaa.org.hk/publications/guide/eng/sec7.pdf


At the bottom of page 123, titled "tenancies by contract and by operation of law"


Relevant paragraph Quoted:


"A tenancy at will is created by operation of law. The essential element of a tenancy at will is that the tenant occupies the premises with the consent, express or implied, of the landlord. Usually it occurs where a tenant has a fixed term tenancy which comes to an end, and the tenant remains on the land. If the landlord does not object to the tenant “holding over”, but they have not agreed on a new fixed term tenancy, the tenant can remain until the landlord determines the tenancy by asking the tenant to leave. This is usually taken to mean that the landlord has consented to the tenant remaining until a new tenancy is agreed upon, or the tenant becomes a periodic tenant, or he is asked to leave by the landlord. This tenancy is referred to as a tenancy at will because it is determinable immediately at the will of either party by simply informing the other party that the tenancy is at an end. No notice is required. "


Where did you read that this is not in effect? Any document to support this?

liebster. Maybe you are right but, as stated above, if the landlord withdraws his/her offer and asks the tenant to leave then there is no right of tenancy and no notice is required. I was looking at the summary of the Landlord and Tenants Act of 2004 which removes the automatic right of tenancy.