I got a call the other day from a man who had just received a letter from his landlord stating that his lease had been terminated because he had a cat, contrary to the rules.
However, the issue was a little more complicated than that. First, it was a stray cat that the tenant had occasionally given some food to, which could be strictly speaking wrong if it led to the cat developing a permanent attachment to the tenant in question.
The landlord had, as he should, sent the tenant a demand that the tenant immediately get rid of the cat. The tenant therefore made sure to find a family that wanted the cat. This happened on Wednesday. On Friday, the tenant then received a letter from the landlord with a termination of the lease agreement, and if the termination was not good enough, the landlord had chosen to also terminate the lease agreement with 3 months' notice due to illegal animal keeping. This is the correct procedure.
There was just one problem. Section 94(3) of the Tenancy Act states that a tenancy agreement cannot be terminated if the tenant has rectified the problem before the termination reaches the tenant. The decisive factor is therefore whether the tenant is still in breach of the tenancy agreement at the precise time when the termination is delivered by post. In cases of non-payment of rent, there are, for example, examples of a tenant who has paid the rent due as little as half an hour after the termination letter arrived, having nevertheless been evicted. In this specific case, the tenant had got rid of the cat two days before the letter arrived, and therefore I was able to tell the tenant that the landlord's termination and termination in his case is not valid. However, I encouraged him to send a written objection to the landlord regardless, in which he explained the correct context of the case.
Whether the landlord will still proceed with the case and try to get the tenant evicted remains to be seen, but as the story was explained here, I have no doubt that the tenant will be able to stay.