KHALILI & CHATHA

Khalili & Chatha concerned a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. The tenant, Mr. Khalili, sought to terminate his commercial lease with the landlord, Ms. Chatha, under section 24 of the *Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995* (SA). The landlord opposed the termination, arguing that the tenant had not complied with the notice requirements of the lease. The matter came before Hannam J in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the tenant had validly exercised his right to terminate the lease under section 24 of the Act, notwithstanding the landlord's contention that the notice provided did not strictly comply with the notice provisions stipulated in the lease agreement itself. This required the Court to consider the interplay between the statutory right to terminate and the contractual obligations of the parties regarding notice.

Hannam J determined that the tenant had indeed validly terminated the lease. His Honour reasoned that section 24 of the *Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995* (SA) confers a statutory right upon a tenant to terminate a lease, and this right is not contingent upon strict adherence to any notice provisions that might be contained within the lease agreement itself. The purpose of section 24 is to provide a tenant with a clear mechanism for exit, and to allow a landlord to defeat that statutory right by relying on a technical breach of a lease clause would undermine the legislative intent. Consequently, the Court found that the notice provided by the tenant, while not perfectly aligned with the lease's specific wording, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 24.