Durban - Controversial Durban businessman, Thoshan Panday, was back in court in a bid to kick a “distant relative” out of a luxury uMhlanga flat he owns to make way for paying tenants.
Earlier this year, the same relative, who described himself as Panday’s brother, was granted a court order to be allowed back into the flat after Panday had the locks changed.
In papers before the Durban High Court on Friday, Panday said he was advised against opposing the urgent application brought by Pranesh Panday and his wife, Sunitha Kissoon, in April.
He had since sent Pranesh letters to vacate the premises but he had apparently refused to do so.
Pranesh said Panday was the flat owner but argued that, because he had lived in the unit for five years and had paid the levies, water and electricity and for maintenance, he was the “de facto” owner.
He also said that Panday had allowed his attorney into the building with a locksmith who changed the locks and, when he tried to enter the premises with his own locksmith, he was denied access.
In court papers, he referred to himself as Panday’s brother. However, Panday had denied this, saying he was a relative and argued he could not stay in the flat rent-free.
In the recent court application, Panday said he was in the business of buying property as part of his investment portfolio, and had bought the unit at The Quartz in Zenith Drive, uMhlanga in 2009, off-plan.
He invited Pranesh to come from Pietermaritzburg and work for his company in September 2009 and allowed him to stay at the flat.
Towards the end of 2010, Panday said Pranesh got engaged and, because he was a “distant relative, I decided to let him use the property”.
“It was a temporary arrangement and he would move out once he was financially stable. The agreement was for him to stay for six months,” read Panday’s affidavit.
After this time lapsed, Panday reminded Pranesh of the agreement and said Pranesh asked for an extension, which he agreed to.
Panday said Pranesh was responsible for the water and electricity account, including property levies, but was not paying rent.
“I was considerate to him as I knew his financial position and more so that he was my distant relative.”
Things soured between the two in February when Pranesh was fired and told to vacate the flat and return the company vehicle, a Toyota Fortuna.
Panday said he intended getting a rent-paying tenant, but Pranesh refused to move out.
A letter was apparently personally delivered, but torn up. Panday filed a complaint with the police to trace the SUV, which was later recovered.
“It is now abundantly clear to me that the Respondent (Pranesh) and those occupying the property through him, have no intention any time in the near future, to vacate the property,” read Panday’s affidavit.
On Friday, Judge Rashid Vahed granted an order for the court sheriff to serve Pranesh notice of this legal action and that he had less than 14 days to oppose.
He also adjourned the matter indefinitely.
Daily News