Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 All ER 1109
Landlord and tenant; whether cutting off gas and electricity is a breach of covenant
Facts
Perera was the tenant of two rooms in a house owned by Vandiyar, where he lived with his wife and two-year old child. Vandiyar cut off the gas and electricity supply to the rooms and prevented Perera from switching the supply back on. After two days of discomfort, Perera left the premises and returned five days later when the county court ordered the supply be restored. Perera was awarded damages for breach of contract and punitive damages on the basis that Vandiyar’s acts had amounted to a malicious tort. Vandiyar appealed.
Issues
Perera contended that cutting off the gas and electricity supply amounted to a tort of eviction, because his continued occupation of the premises became impossible without heating and lighting. He also argued having the utility supplies cut off amounted to a breach of the landlord’s covenant to allow the tenant to enjoy quiet enjoyment of the premises. Vandiyar maintained he had cut the gas and electricity supplies because he had believed the tenant and his family were going on holiday. He denied his actions were designed to force the eviction of the tenant, and nor did they amount to a breach of covenant.
Decision/Outcome
Cutting off the gas and electricity supply amounted to a breach of contract and Perera was, therefore, entitled to damages for breach of covenant. The landlord’s actions, however, did not amount to a tort because there had been no direct interference with the leasehold premises, and so there had been no direct trespass. Deliberate, severe breach of Vandiyar’s obligations as a landlord entitled Perera to damages for breach of contract, but there was no liability in tort.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 All ER 1109. The core holding — that cutting off utilities amounts to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment sounding in contract, but does not of itself constitute a tort — remains good law as a statement of the common law position.
However, readers should be aware of significant statutory developments that substantially affect the practical legal landscape described here. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 now makes it a criminal offence for a landlord to unlawfully deprive a residential occupier of occupation, and section 1(3) covers acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier. Cutting off utilities could engage this provision. Additionally, the Housing Act 1988, section 27, created a statutory tort of unlawful eviction and harassment, potentially giving a tenant a right to damages in tort in circumstances going beyond what was available at common law in 1953. These statutory remedies mean that the practical outcome in a similar modern case could differ significantly from what Perera v Vandiyar alone would suggest. The article should therefore be read alongside these statutory frameworks rather than as a complete statement of current landlord and tenant law in this area.
