Recently, one of my friends was asked to move out of her rented apartment because her landlady wanted the apartment for a son to live in. In Bermuda, there are such unexpected circumstances, when a landlord has a legal right to remove a residential tenant. However, there are tenant safeguards in place, too.

The Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Act 1978, as amended ("the 1978 Act") applies to residential tenancies of dwellings with an annual rental value ("ARV") threshold of $24,600 or less.

You can find the ARV of a property at the Land Valuation Department's website at www.agri.ns.ca/landval_lv/default.htm.

If a property is subject to a tenancy that falls within the ARV threshold, the tenant, amongst other things, is legally entitled to:

¦ security of tenure, meaning that unless the tenant chooses to leave at the landlord's request the landlord will not be permitted to arbitrarily terminate the tenancy, and may only do so after obtaining a court order;

¦ protection from arbitrary rent increases; and

¦ protection from having to provide the landlord with large deposits.

A court order may only end a tenancy if the landlord has served a notice to quit, in the required format, on the tenant. It must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

¦ the tenant moves out;

¦ the tenant has not paid the rent or has broken the terms of the tenancy;

¦ the landlord requires possession for use as a dwelling by the landlord, the landlord's mother or father, or the landlord's child or grandchild who is over 21 years old or who has married;

¦ the landlord intends to rebuild or carry out renovations of a major character; or

¦ the tenant is undesirable.

Shortly after her landlady informed my friend that the apartment was required for her son, my friend moved out even though no proper notice to quit had been served. Had my friend insisted on her rights, her landlady would have had to follow an irksome and possibly expensive procedure.

The landlady would have had to serve a proper notice to quit on my friend, having discovered that her first "notice" was invalid because it was not in the required form.

Following receipt of proper notice, my friend would then have had 14 days to challenge the notice, by serving a counter notice on her landlady and lodging a copy with the Rent Commissioner, with a request for a hearing.

In the meantime, while waiting for the hearing date – probably some weeks away – my friend and her landlady would have been uncomfortably living next door to each other.

At a hearing a landlord is required to give evidence that one of the above listed grounds has been fulfilled.

At this point my friend could have indicated that the "notice" actually served was not in the requisite form and her landlady might have had to start the whole process over again, adding further delay.

Even where the notice is in the required form and on proper legal grounds, a tenant can ask for time in which to find an alternative place to live. In the meantime, the existing tenancy will continue.

In certain circumstances, such as if the major renovation ground for termination is being relied upon by a landlord, the tenant may be entitled to receive a certain sum of money from the landlord if, say, the major renovations are not performed by a certain date.

A well-informed tenant could perhaps give a landlord enough hassle and uncertainty to prompt the landlord to pay the tenant compensation by way of an agreed surrender of the tenancy, or cause the landlord to allow the tenant to stay in the premises.

The 1978 Act also assists tenants in rent increase situations, but is not relevant in the case of newly constructed units being let for the first time.

If a tenant occupying rent controlled premises and his landlord cannot agree a rental increase, the landlord must apply to the Rent Commissioner for authorisation to increase the rent. The tenant may challenge the rent increase and in times such as now, with a softer rental market, tenants may have good arguments to keep increases (if any) to a minimum.

The Rent Commissioner decides whether or not the proposed increase is acceptable and if not may specify an acceptable increase (if any). Either a landlord or a tenant can appeal the Rent Commissioner's decision, further delaying any possible increase. Even if agreed by the tenant, a landlord must not increase the rent during the first six months of a rent-controlled tenancy.

If landlord and tenant agree a rent increase after the first six months, the Rent Commissioner must be notified of the increase. If the tenant is pressured into agreeing an increase, the Rent Commissioner may protect the tenant by voiding the increase.

Additionally a returnable deposit, less any deductions for damages etc., payable by a rent-controlled tenant, should not exceed the equivalent of more than a fortnight's rent. Contravention of the 1978 Act by a landlord can result in criminal prosecution and for that reason and the others discussed above, the 1978 Act is said to be "landlord unfriendly".

A landlord who is unsure whether or not a property is rent controlled and/or is unsure about the consequences of rent control, should seek legal advice before entering into a tenancy agreement or increasing rent. A tenant being pressured to leave or to accept an unwelcome rent increase should similarly seek advice.

Attorney Neil Molyneux is a member of the Property Practice Group of Appleby. A copy of this column is available on the firm's web site at www.applebyglobal.com. This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.