Lease disputeHolding over damagesUtility bill apportionment
legislation
Statutes Cited
*
(
N
o
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
w
e
r
e
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
o
r
c
i
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
)
*
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the figure of $9,207.15 is attributable to the defendant as outstanding electricity bills","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Multiple tenants used electricity; no apportionment formula; defendant paid large portions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant should pay $800.00 as arrear rentals","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payment of $700 in May 2014; lack of records; confusion in testimony"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant is liable for holding over damages of $1,500.00 per month due to failure to give vacant possession","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Keys handed over; premises accessible; new tenant occupied from October 2014"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff, Jesman Garments (Pvt) Ltd, leased a factory to the defendant, Tumble Plastics (Pvt) Ltd, under a verbal agreement from 2003 to May 2014. The plaintiff claimed outstanding rentals, holding over damages, and unpaid electricity bills. The defendant denied liability, arguing it had vacated the premises properly and that the electricity bill was a shared expense among multiple tenants.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases