Narine, Hinds ordered to pay former landlord

TT cricketers Sunil Narine and Terrence Hinds are on the hook for a breach of a business arrangement with their former landlord over rent for a bar they operated in Oropoune Gardens, Piarco.

In all the two will be made to pay a total of $123,636.61, representing $68,253.10 in rent owed to landlord Dave Kangal; $9,021 in interest and the remainder in costs.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Ricky Rahim on October 3. In his decision, Rahim said it was "somewhat unfortunate" that Narine "found himself liable" in the case since the evidence showed "little or no participation on his part perhaps only to finance Terrance.

"His involvement therefore is by virtue of him having been named as a tenant on the agreement.

"Notwithstanding this, the chips must lie where they fall." Kangal was represented by attorney Richard Jaggasar.

Rahim was critical of Hinds and his sister Annastezier Hinds.

"On the other hand, the court was taken aback by the tenor of the dealings between Terrance and Anna on one hand and the defendant on the other.

"There is a strong inference that they sought to take advantage of the apparent lack of understanding and naiveite to a certain extent of the defendant to his disadvantage and to their benefit."

The dispute stemmed from a tenancy agreement dated July 1, 2020, between the two cricketers and Kangal. Initially, the two filed a lawsuit for breach of the tenancy agreement while Kangal filed a counter-claim, contending the cricketers were the ones in breach.

The agreement was that Narine and Hinds would rent Kangal's property for five years with the option of the contract being renewed for an additional two-year period.

For the first month, the rent was to be $5,000, and from August to December 2020, $11,000 per month had to be paid. From the beginning of January to the end of December 2021, it was to be $13,000 monthly, then $14,000 monthly in 2022 and $15,000 each month for the remainder of the contract.

It was also agreed that Narine and Hinds would pay the electricity bill and that Kangal would incrementally reimburse them for renovations done to his property. Hinds claimed he spent $100,000 but was unable to provide some of the receipts to support this.

"As the evidence stands it is grossly poor..."

After covid19 pandemic restrictions led to a shutdown of bars in October 2020, Hinds claimed he asked for a reduction in rent and Kangal agreed. The shutdown continued until November 2021, and Hinds further claimed that Kangal agreed to $3,000 in rent until the bar could be re-opened.

The bar reopened in late November 2021 but Hinds and Kangal could not agree on the amount to be paid. Hinds also contended he discovered he was paying electricity not only for the bar but Kangal's father's home next door and a shop.

Kangal exercised his right to re-entry under clause 11 of the tenancy agreement in the event of non-payment of rent within seven days of it becoming due. A bailiff put a new lock on the front door and took possession of the premises. Since then, Hinds and Narine have been unable to operate the bar. They also received a notice to quit.

In his ruling, Rahim said the burden lay with the two cricketers to prove their case on the supplemental agreement and they did not.

"It is therefore highly suspicious that Terrance testified that it was only in November 2020 at the time of the lockdown the agreement was varied to provide for the decreased rent.

"But this explanation is rife with holes. Firstly, it was brought out in cross-examination that contrary to his

assertion, the country had been in lockdowns of one type or another as early as March 2020 so when he entered into the principal agreement, he was aware of the same."

Rahim also said from the evidence, the cricketers knew the rent was $11,000 but "continued to short-pay" the landlord.

"In the present case, the only persons to benefit from a reduction in rent would be the claimants. This would certainly not be a benefit to the defendant but in fact a disadvantage to him as he would have been surrendering his rights to enforce the contract for non-payment of rent. There was no mutual surrender of rights as the claimants lost nothing and were solely to benefit.

"In such a case, even if the defendant had promised to accept less rent his actions amount to nothing more than a gratuitous promise.

"There being no consideration, there could be no enforceable variation of the contract and the court so finds."

He also said there was a binding covenant to pay rent.

"So that saying that the defendant did not want to take less is no excuse for the breach of the covenant.

"In fact, Terrance has not demonstrated in what way he made attempts to pay. The court does not believe that he did in fact make any attempt to pay...His evidence is downright unbelievable. "

Rahim further held the landlord's re-entry was "entirely lawful," and also suggested that Hind's sister's "sneaking" in through the back door to retrieve items or turn on roulette machines was "that of a trespasser."

Since, Hinds will be able to recover the costs for stock left in the bar, fixtures, refrigerator and televisions or $62,246.90 which was offset from the total awarded to Kangal, leaving them to pay $68,253.10.