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)
From the opinion---
The trial court found that evidence demonstrating all the elements of a preliminary injunction was shown except for the first element requiring “immediate and irreparable harm [defined as] injury for which damages can only be estimated by conjecture and not by an accurate pecuniary standard or cannot be adequately compensated by an award of monetary damages.” City of Allentown v. Lehigh Cnty. Auth., 222 A.3d 1152, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2019) . . . . “In order to meet this burden, a plaintiff must present concrete evidence demonstrating actual proof of irreparable harm.” Id. (citation omitted).
Where there is a real property interest, the loss of that interest constitutes irreparable harm because each parcel of real estate is unique. See Peters v. Davis, 231 A.2d 748 (Pa. 1967), stating:
The aggrieved property owner’s right is absolute. However hard his acts might be regarded; he asks the court for the enforcement of a legal right of a positive character with respect to land which it is conceded was wrongfully taken from him. He is entitled to a decree. The rule in such a case is founded on sound reason. If damages may be substituted for the land, it will amount to an open invitation to those so inclined to follow a similar course and thus secure valuable property rights. The amount of land involved does not change the situation. Here is a wrongful invasion of a positive right to real property. If a property owner deliberately and intentionally violates a valid express restriction running with the land or intentionally ‘takes a chance’, the appropriate remedy is a mandatory injunction to eradicate the violation.
Id. at 752 (citation omitted).
Our Supreme Court has also held that, “In light of the unique and intrinsic value of land, interference with the plaintiff’s contractual rights to ownership of that land must be deemed irreparable harm.” New Eastwick Corp. v. Philadelphia Builders Eastwick Corp., 241 A.2d 766, 770 (Pa. 1968). Additionally, regarding possession of a leasehold interest, “[t]here is substantial common-law authority that the leasing of property is identical to the sale of the premises.” Com., by Creamer v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 822 (Pa. 1974) (citation omitted).
