At this stage, no written notice had been served. We were still carefully contemplating our next steps; whether to allow the tenancy to continue as agreed, extend it, or proceed with a sale of the property. Nothing had been finalized.
Then July happened.
In July, an incident occurred on the premises involving the tenant and one of his guests. The situation escalated into an assault case that drew the attention of law enforcement. In the process, our staff member who served as both security and cleaner on the property was arrested, along with one of the tenant’s own staff members.
What should have remained a quiet residential property suddenly became the subject of a police investigation. Almost at the same time, we conducted a routine inventory and inspection of the premises.
What we discovered raised serious concerns. The main living area of the property had been converted into a podcast studio. Equipment had been installed, the space altered, and the original residential use significantly changed all without our consent.
This was in direct violation of the tenancy agreement, which restricted the use of the property strictly to residential purposes. At that point, from our perspective as landlords, the line had clearly been crossed.
Following these developments, we proceeded to serve a written notice. Shortly after the notice was served, the tenant responded via text message. He indicated that he would need time to find another place. Through his security, he engaged our team to assist him in identifying alternative accommodation. Our team actively did so, presented available options, and we initially anticipated a peaceful and orderly relocation.
During these discussions, the tenant reminded us that prior to moving into the current property, he had expressed interest in another property we owned and asked whether he could be transferred to that house instead.
That request was not new. Before moving into the current property, he had indeed shown interest in one of our other units. At the time, however, that property was still under preparation and not ready for rental. This had been clearly communicated to him both before and after he moved in. Nothing had changed. The property remained unavailable.
More importantly, no advance rent payment had been made in respect of that second property, despite an agreement having been signed. The understanding though not reduced into writing was that advance payment would enable us complete furnishing and make the property ready for occupation. That payment never came.
Around this same period, we received a formal letter from the tenant’s lawyers requesting the execution and enforcement of what they referred to as a “second contract.” In that letter, they claimed it was binding on us to release the second property to their client. This position ignored a fundamental fact: the tenant had breached that agreement from the outset by failing to make the advance rent payment expressly stipulated in the contract.
We responded by reiterating that the property was not ready and that the contractual conditions precedent had not been met. After that response, there was no formal reply; no objection, no request for renegotiation, and no attempt to clarify terms. Silence followed.
It was shortly after this silence that we received yet another letter again, from the tenant’s lawyers.
That was the moment we realized this was no longer a simple landlord-tenant disagreement. It had entered a different phase altogether.
And that was when the real drama began.
Part Three will take us into what happens when lawyers step in—and why landlords must be prepared long before that letter arrives.
