A commercial tenant that was evicted by self-help measures is entitled to a preliminary injunction restoring possession because (1) the Landlord-Tenant Act provides the “complete and exclusive system in itself” to obtain the eviction of tenants and (2) the loss of a leasehold interest in real estate constitutes irreparable harm. Fraport Pittsburgh v. Allegheny County Airport Authority, No. 974 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. May 9, 2023).
Thank you Brandon Copeland for bringing this case to my attention.
“Not only should a preliminary injunction be issued because money
damages cannot compensate Fraport for loss of its leasehold interest, but it
was also an error for the trial court not to issue a preliminary injunction due
to ACAA’s self-help by the improper use of the Allegheny County Police to
advance its commercial interests to evict Fraport.
Because a landlord/tenant relationship existed, ACAA was required to
utilize the procedures set forth in the Landlord Tenant Act of 19519
to lawfully evict10 Fraport. The Landlord Tenant Act is a comprehensive regulatory
scheme governing the landlord and tenant relationship. See Stonehedge
Square Ltd. P'ship v. Movie Merchants, Inc., 715 A.2d 1082, 1085 (Pa.
1998). It “sets up the procedure whereby a landlord may repossess [the]
premises if he has a right to evict the tenant.” Warren v. City of
Philadelphia, 115 A.2d 218, 221 (Pa. 1955). The Landlord Tenant Act states
that all other inconsistent acts are repealed and that “[i]t is intended that
this act shall furnish a complete and exclusive system in itself.” 68
P.S. § 250.602 (emphasis added).
***
Regarding self-help, while the Landlord Tenant Act provides that it is the
“complete and exclusive system in itself” to obtain the eviction of
tenants, surprisingly, no Pennsylvania appellate decision has addressed the
issue of the appropriateness of a landlord’s use of self-help, but the courts of
common pleas which have addressed this issue have consistently held self-
help is not available to evict a tenant. See e.g., O'Brien v. Jacob Engle
Foundation, Inc., 47 Pa. D. & C.3d 557, 558–59 (Cumberland Cty. 1987)
(noting that self-help should not be used where judicial procedures, like the
Landlord Tenant Act, are available); Lenair v. Campbell, 31 Pa. D. & C.3d
237, 241 (Philadelphia Cty. 1984) (“Upon reviewing the [Landlord Tenant Act]
in its entirety, it becomes apparent that self-help eviction is not a remedy
under any circumstances. . . . [T]he legislature clearly expressed its intention
that the Act be the sole source of rights, remedies and procedures governing
the landlord/tenant relationship.”); Wofford v. Vavreck, 22 Pa. D. & C. 3d
444, 453 (Crawford Cty. 1981) (“A landlord desirous of seeking repossession
of his leased premises from his tenant for nonpayment of rent must do so
either by bringing an action under the Landlord and Tenant Act [], and the
related Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for Justices of the Peace, or by
bringing an action in ejectment.”); Williams v. Guzzardi, 875 F.2d 46, 52 n.
13 (3d Cir. 1989) (analyzing pertinent Pennsylvania law). Moreover, under
the Master Lease, the ACCA limited itself to seeking only remedies at law and
equity and not to engage in self-help, even if it was permissible. See Master
Lease at 46, § 12.04).
