Guesthouse owners in Sihanoukville say that they were forced to move out. They have left the country.







Italian news:

This has been an ongoing drama which has been posted on several expat oriented FB groups...usual Shitsville story, landlord sold land lease to Chinese and tried kicking foreign leaseholder off property, foreign leaseholders were trying to fight the landlord in court for breaking lease against the lease agreement, sounds like the landlord won (was connected/paid the right people).

Usual barang business practice. Barangs buy rent contract and a MoC/GDT paper and make changes to the building or build on the land as if they owned the place.

The fastest way to ownership is through purchase. This barang rented the property and profited by doing so. The barang had the option to buy but chose not to. Of course the landlord is the bad guy in barang media for terminating the RENTAL CONTRACT so he could SELL it. Probably been in the business of selling the barang came here just decided to rent it out until someone offered the right price.

fax wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:51 am Usual barang business practice. Barangs buy rent contract and a MoC/GDT paper and make changes to the building or build on the land as if they owned the place.

The fastest way to ownership is through purchase. This barang rented the property and profited by doing so. The barang had the option to buy but chose not to. Of course the landlord is the bad guy in barang media for terminating the RENTAL CONTRACT so he could SELL it. Probably been in the business of selling the barang came here just decided to rent it out until someone offered the right price.

If the landlord committed to renting the place for a period of years, then the barangs did not build “as if they owned the place.” They built as long term tenants. If the landlord then reneged on the deal and forced them out without compensation, how is the landlord not the bad guy?

This assumes there was no lease provision allowing the landlord to kick the tenant out in the event of a sale.

Since we don't know the facts of the lease agreement we really can't comment on this in any factual way. It doesn't matter who the landlord is if the agreement stipulates he can sell and in which case he has the right to terminate the lease without compensation the lessees are up the creek.
If the agreement doesn't state this they can go to court and will win if they have the right lawyer.
There was a similar case on Serendipity. The landlady, also highly placed, terminated the lease without cause and tried to evict the British business owner. The business owner went to court and won. It did take a year though. They later sold the business to another Westerner who continued it until the lease expired.
My lease stated that my landlord, big wheel too, could sell the land but must ensure that my lease would be assumed by the new owner.
With the Chinese influx I ended up selling the business I had built from scratch on his land to the landlord himself halfway through my lease. He would rather buy it than have me selling it to Chinese buyers who I had lined up already.
A lot of times the foreign business owners conclude leases the exact terms they are not sure of because the translation is faulty.

Cam Nivag wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:38 am

fax wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:51 am Usual barang business practice. Barangs buy rent contract and a MoC/GDT paper and make changes to the building or build on the land as if they owned the place.

The fastest way to ownership is through purchase. This barang rented the property and profited by doing so. The barang had the option to buy but chose not to. Of course the landlord is the bad guy in barang media for terminating the RENTAL CONTRACT so he could SELL it. Probably been in the business of selling the barang came here just decided to rent it out until someone offered the right price.

If the landlord committed to renting the place for a period of years, then the barangs did not build “as if they owned the place.” They built as long term tenants. If the landlord then reneged on the deal and forced them out without compensation, how is the landlord not the bad guy?

This assumes there was no lease provision allowing the landlord to kick the tenant out in the event of a sale.

Every time a landlord upsets a tenant it’s the same shouting match about evil Khmers as when something happens to a barang in the street.

What other compensation would be needed for a terminated lease other than a repaid deposit? If you build a house on land that’s not yours and you can’t take that house with you then you better have added that to the risk estimation and no I don’t think I’m a bad guy if I terminate a rental agreement and don’t compensate these crazy sums people sell a rent contract for.

The compensation due to the tenant should be whatever the tenant’s economic losses are from the early termination, such as the expected profit the tenant would have made over the remainder of the lease.

The deposit return is what the landlord owes if the lease expires in its ordinary course.

would it be possible for the landlord to claim the tenant 'damaged' his property by adding buildings without consent?