(Trinidad Express) A business arrangement that did not go as planned came to an end with Trinbagonian cricketers Sunil Narine and Terrance Hinds having to pay more than $60,000 to their former landlord for breach of contract.
Justice Ricky Rahim said it was unfortunate that Narine found himself liable in the case as the evidence showed little or no participation on his part, except perhaps only to financially assist Hinds in his business venture.
Narine and Hinds were the ones who first took the landlord, Dave Kangal, to court for breach of a tenancy contract in relation to a bar at Oropune Gardens, Piarco.
Kangal then filed a counter- claim, contending that the cricketers were the ones who had breached the contract-a position that Justice Rahim agreed with-before ordering Narine and Hinds to pay Kangal outstanding rent in the amount of $62,246.90 with interest. They were also ordered to pay 50% of his legal costs.
In his written ruling delivered on Thursday evening, Justice Rahim found that the two were actually owing Kangal $130,500 in unpaid rent. This figure was offset, however, since the court also found Narine and Hinds had to be reimbursed by Kangal in the sum of $68,263.10 for renovations and improvements to the bar.
Hinds had argued that $100,000 was actually spent on those renovations and improvements, but at trial, he was unable to provide some of the receipts to support his contention.
When it came to Narine’s involvement in the arrangement, the judge said this was only by virtue of him having been named as a tenant on the agreement simpliciter.
‘Notwithstanding this, the chips must lie where they fall. On the other hand, the court was taken aback by the tenor of the dealings between Terrance and Anna (Hinds’ sister) 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 naivete to a certain extent of the defendant to his disadvantage and to their benefit,’ he stated.
Background
The genesis of what eventually led to the lawsuit took place by way of a tenancy agreement dated July 1, 2020.
The agreement was that Narine and Hinds would rent Kangal’s property for a period of five years with the option of the contract being renewed for an additional two-year-period thereafter.
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, who was represented by attorney Richard Jaggasar, would incrementally reimburse them for renovations done to his property.
A clause in the agreement also allowed for the re-entry by Kangal in the event of non-pay-ment of rent within seven days of it becoming due.
With the onset of the Covid- 19 pandemic and government’s subsequent decision in October 2020 to not allow bars to operate on a temporary basis, negotiations were held between Hinds and Kangal for a reduction in rent payments.
This was agreed upon by Kangal, and with a state of emergency being called in April 2021, there were further negotiations for a variation of rental payment given that bars were not allowed to operate.
At one point, Hinds realised that he was also paying for electricity for another tenant and premises occupied by Kangal’s father.
The judgment said that Hinds approached Kangal about this but he refused to accept any further reduced rent. From that point began a breakdown in their relationship.
Because of Hinds’ failure to make some of the rental payments, Kangal hired a bailiff to take possession of the premises and place new locks on the doors, preventing Hinds and Narine from entering.
In the lawsuit, Hinds contended he was not required to pay the amount of rent that was initially agreed upon since Kangal had agreed to the variation. Kangal on the other hand, argued that the reduction in rent was only to reduce financial strain on Hinds, but that the remainder was still being owed.
