Named Galway landlord who told tenant he needed house back offered to let her stay if she paid more rent
Shortly after informing the tenant about needing the property for his kids, the landlord offered to let her remain in the dwelling for another five years if the monthly rent was increased
A Galway landlord who told a tenant of 10 years that he needed the property back to accommodate his children subsequently offered to allow her stay if she paid 33% more rent, a tribunal has heard.
Gita Bicka had been living at 20 Glenview Drive, Riverside since June 2016, paying landlord Jarleth Murphy €1,200 a month, along with a security deposit of €900.
She told a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal that Mr Murphy had informed her that he needed the property back for his son, who was attending college in Galway.
Shortly afterwards, however, he offered to let her remain in the dwelling for another five years if the monthly rent was increased to €1,600, Ms Bicka said.
She told Mr Murphy that she would agree to the proposal on condition that rent remained fixed for five years, that she receive a written lease, and that payments be made by bank transfer so she could demonstrate a track record for a mortgage application.
When Mr Murphy disagreed, Ms Bicka said she was served with a termination notice and statutory declaration regarding his need for the property on January 16, 2026.
Questioning the landlord’s genuine requirement for the property, Ms Bicka told the tribunal that an earlier notice had been served in December 2024 citing the same reason, but this had been deemed invalid by housing charity Threshold.
She argued that, if Mr Murphy really needed the house, he would not have waited over a year to issue a fresh termination notice, nor would he have offered her a new five-year tenancy.
In his evidence, Mr Murphy said he had always informed Ms Bicka that he would ultimately need the property back when his son attended university as it would reduce his commute from 20 miles to a mile-and-a-half.
Addressing the five-year offer, Mr Murphy stated it was one of three plans floated during discussions to support the tenant. He told the tribunal that, if she had stayed on at the higher rent of €1,600, that would have been used to subsidise accommodation for his son.
He added that his second son was now also attending college, increasing his need for the house.
Mr Murphy also apologised to Ms Bicka during the hearing for having raised issues concerning her personal life, including claims regarding unauthorised subletting and animals, acknowledging that he had previously provided a reference for the woman who stayed at the property.
In its findings, the tribunal ruled that the notice served on January 16 was fully valid and adequate notice had been provided.
The tribunal confirmed it accepted the bona fides of Mr Murphy’s evidence that the house was required for family occupation. However, it noted that should his family members fail to occupy the home, or should it be relet to anyone else within 12 months of the determination order, the tenant would be entitled to seek damages or an order to resume occupation.
It ordered Ms Bicka to vacate within 42 days and to pay rent at the rate of €1,200 per month until she vacates, upon which Mr Murphy must refund her €900 deposit, less any lawful deductions.