There are many citizens in Trinidad and Tobago who own their lands and have the benefit of deeds, leases or other such legal documents evidencing their ownership.
Similarly, there are many who live on tenanted or rented lands. Lands which were tenanted by their families for longer than they can remember, or even longer than their lifetime. Their families, over the years, would have built, occupied and maintained sizable and valuable homes on these rented lands.
In the late 1970s or thereabouts, the government of the day would have taken note of the extent of tenanted lands and the little protection afforded to tenants. This concern by the government led to the drafting and assent of the Land Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act.
I have taken note of this act before and commented on my dislike for the manner in which the act was drafted. Nonetheless, the aim of the act was to offer protection to tenants who were in vulnerable positions.
To simplify the act, it basically granted a 30-year lease to persons who, at the time of the act, were tenants. While the act stated that tenants should only construct a chattel house on the tenanted lands, this was not always the case. A chattel house can be described as a movable wooden home. The act bound landlords to an automatic 30-year lease at a rental value that could be described as inconsequential.
The difficulty with many pieces of legislation in our country is that the people whom it is meant to protect only understand the salient points of the legislation, but never truly comprehend the entirety of it to determine what they can and cannot do.
On May 31, 2011, the 30-year lease which was granted then expired. The provisions of the act were clear in requiring the tenant to issue a written notice of renewal to secure another 30-year lease. Reminders of the upcoming expiration of the lease were published in the daily newspapers and government websites, but, needless to say, many tenants failed to take notice, not surprisingly, because few people actually take notice of these requirements.
The act had always swung more in favour of the tenant than the landlord. However, the expiration of the lease and the failure to renew by the tenants now meant that the landlord was once more the person with the power to treat with their land as they wish.
It is now 15 years after the fact and many tenants have failed to renew their tenancy within the prescribed timeframe and many are still blissfully unaware that there was a need to renew.
Landlords have taken notice and many have rushed to the courts seeking relief from tenants who no longer have the benefit of a 30-year lease. The decisions coming out of the court have made it abundantly clear that if there is no renewal of the statutory tenancy notice, then the tenants can be evicted or even treated as trespassers on the once tenanted lands.
Eviction is not the only concern for tenants. Many tenants would have constructed substantive concrete structures.
The act, in its wording, gave no consideration to compensation for tenants who would have failed to construct a chattel house, but who would have expended considerably more money. It means that many tenants would lose the money invested in their homes.
In 2019, the Privy Council, in the decision of Mohammed -v- Gomez, demonstrated that in particular circumstances, the court can consider whether a tenant has acquired a proprietary estoppel and can be compensated for substantial homes. Notably, this is not a relief that would be available to all tenants.
For both landlords and tenants, we are approaching an interesting juncture. This year, as I stated above, would be 15 years from the time at which the renewal notice was required. There have been prudent landlords who have already removed tenants from their lands for failure to renew. But there are other landlords who have sat idly by as they refuse to take action, or refuse to pay legal fees or believe that time and the law are on their side.
On the flip side, there are tenants who have sought legal advice or are well aware of their rights and are quietly watching the years pass by, knowing or hoping that after 16 years they may be able to mount a challenge under adverse possession.
It needs to be noted that the exchange of letters does not stop time from running in cases of adverse possession. So, for landlords who have been content to send letters every few years and believe that amounts to preventing claims in adverse possession by former tenants, this will not work. The only action that stops time from running in favour of a person attempting to claim adverse possession is an action filed in the court.
It seems that we have just celebrated New Year’s but we are already coming to the end of the fifth month of 2026. In a blink, 2027 will be upon us and by then, a 16-year period will have expired. We may soon see former statutory tenants now becoming adverse possessors.
The expiration of the statutory tenancy would have allowed many landlords to be able to enter new agreements or repossess their lands, yet, failure to understand legislation or seek advice may well mean that by next year, many landlords may face an uphill battle to reclaim former tenanted lands.
Pavitra Ramharack is head of chambers at Pavitra Ramharack Attorneys at Law and can be reached at ramharack_pavitra@outlook.com
