Proceedings Commissioner vs. Kant, 2017 FJHC 407 (Fiji)

The proceeding was instituted by Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (the Commission) on behalf of a tenant under a purported agreement of tenancy with the Respondent landlord. The family of nine renting the premises were admittedly in arrears of rent. In April 2017, around 5 to 6 pm, while only a child was in the premises and the others were attending a funeral, a caretaker of the Respondent had locked the house, and the child was left alone outside the house at dusk without any form of supervision. The Commission alleges that Respondent had breached Section 39(1) and 39(2) of the Fiji constitution which guarantees freedom from arbitrary eviction. Respondent admitted that the premises were locked by his caretaker in exercise of "distress of rent" or locking the premises in order to recover rent.

According to the court, under the Distress for Rent Act, the premises should be locked by a landlord or certified bailiff and not by a caretaker. Hence, the act is not allowed by the terms of the Distress for Rent Act, and was illegal. The arbitrariness of the eviction is also shown by the fact that only a child was present in the premises, who was left outside without supervision when the premises was locked. Worse, it was done late in the afternoon, such that the family had to look for alternative accommodations at night and on a weekend. The court awarded compensation to the tenants.