2. I have recently entered into a lease with the Landlord but, before moving in, the Landlord changed his position and said that he did not wish to let the property to me anymore, terminated the tenancy agreement and refused to let me move in. I considered that the terms of the lease was a good bargain to me and I liked this property a lot. Instead of asking for money compensation, can I ask the Court to compel the Landlord to let the property to me on the original terms despite the landlord has breached it?
Assuming the landlord has breached the tenancy agreement by wrongfully terminating it (i.e. without any ‘break clause’ as further explained below), there may be a chance for the tenant to promptly apply to the Court for the remedy of ‘specific performance’ of the tenancy agreement by ordering the landlord to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement (instead of payment of damages) by reason that each property is unique and the award of damages for loss of bargain (or other kinds of compensation) is insufficient. If the order for specific performance is granted, the landlord needs to lease the property to the tenant.
However, the remedy of ‘specific performance’ is discretionary and equitable in nature (rather than as of right). In some cases, the Court may not be convinced that a suitable substitute property is not readily available in the market (especially for residential properties in larger developments). The Court may also be concerned that it may not be in a position to constantly supervise and continually enforce a tenancy agreement against the landlord for years. There may also be third party rights involved if the landlord has already sold the property to other parties which may decline the grant of specific performance. In such event, the tenant may only be entitled to an award of damages to compensate his/her losses in terms of money.