Contending that a March 2nd article published by this newspaper misrepresented a dispute between owner of RNK Investments Inc., Rizwan Khan and Eping Properties Inc., lawyers for the latter say that Khan failed to effect repairs to the building their client rented from him, which precluded Eping from paying rent until the necessary repairs were completed.
In court documents seen by this newspaper, Khan’s suit against Eping under which business process outsourcing company Emerge BPO operates, is to recover US$40,000 which he argues they owe in unpaid rent for the month of February for the seven floors they occupy at one of two of his Robb and Camp streets properties.
A story reflecting this was published by the Stabroek News on March 2nd, 2020 under the headline, “Rizwan Khan sues Emerge BPO for US$40,000 rent”.
In an April 28 response to this article, however, lawyers from the Florida-based US law firm Pincus & Currier which represents Eping are saying that their client contracted to lease space from Khan’s Robb and Camp streets premises, which according to the agreement, rent was to begin being paid, after Khan would have completed “substantial construction.”
According to the lawyers, owing to Khan’s failure to “timely complete its [his] construction obligation,” Eping commenced legal proceedings to compel the landlord [Khan] to fulfill his obligations and to declare that Eping had no obligation to pay rent until this was done.
Against this background the lawyers argue that their client had both “factual and legal justification for refusing to pay rent, contending further that Khan was in breach of two separate agreements he had signed with Eping and that “Eping did the responsible thing by seeking legal declarations that the landlord’s failure to abide by its [his] contractual obligations released Eping from any reciprocal obligations.”
In court documents seen by this newspaper on behalf of Khan, he explained that by agreement of tenancy dated September 1st, 2019 he rented the specified floors of the building to Emerge at a monthly rental of US$40,000 together with 14% value added tax (VAT).
Khan in his suit said that upon signing the agreement, the respondent Eping paid the US$40,000 which is held as a security deposit.
He then detailed that on September 24th, 2019 Eping also paid him the rent for November 2019, December 2019 and January 2020 and took possession two days after.
Khan complains, however, that since January, the respondents have “deliberately” excluded him and his legal representatives from entering the building.
Noting at that time that February month’s rent had already past due, Khan said that Eping, (the respondents) had “failed, refused and/or neglected” to pay, despite his several demands.
Khan wants to be paid his rent together with 14% VAT payable at the prevailing selling rate of exchange of US dollars at Citizens Bank Guyana Inc., which he says is owed and payable to him by Eping Properties.
Eping’s lawyers have said that in contrast to the true facts, the March 2nd article painted a picture of a non-party, Emerge, and Eping as failing to abide by contractual obligations that Emerge never had and from which Eping was contractually excused.
In a correspondence to the Stabroek News, Eping’s attorneys said that under the “Construction Agreement,” Khan failed in his obligations to improve a portion of the lobby and all of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building on or before November 1st,, 2019.
They said that that agreement specifically sets forth that Eping is not liable for payment of rent until such time as the landlord completes construction.
They emphasised that because Khan failed to meet his construction obligations on a timely basis—and has yet to meet those obligations, Eping has no obligation to pay rent.
They said that the attendant legal proceeding instituted by their client is ongoing.
