Ask Me Help Desk - Non-payment of rent Commercial tenant in PA

I have a commercial tenant who has not paid rent for June or July. I hand delivered a late notice that said,
“Failure to act within 10 days from the date of this notice will lead to eviction proceedings.”
I waited over 10 days, then filed the eviction papers with the local magistrate. I think I’m on the right track, but what I’m concerned about is this: The main sewer in the building became clogged in late April. I had three plumbers come before one was able to fix it buy snaking a main drain located in her store. She claims that there was damage to her personal property in her store due to the plumber’s negligence. But the items for which she is seeking damages were damaged due to the backup (about an inch of water in her store). The plumber fixed the clog but left a muddy and “poopy” mess, which we agreed I would clean up, as apposed to me paying to have a professional clean the place. I thought we were all good, nothing else to discuss. Less than a month after I cleaned the place up, she brought to my attention $2,700+ worth of damages. I respectfully directed her attention to the clauses in the lease pertaining to this situation. I had already let her have a full month’s rent for the 3 weeks she was unable to open (according to her). Even though the lease states that “there shall be no reduction in rent” for personal property damages “caused by plumbing service, water, . . . whether due to accidents, repairs, acts of God . . .”. Though this has nothing to do with my law suit, can she blindside me in court with, “this is why I’m withholding rent”.

She can't legally withhold rent due to "damage." She would have to sue you for any damages in order to recoup her losses.

Typically, tenants are required to retain insurance for any damages to their personal property. She'd have to prove the plumber was actually negligent. Sometimes there's just problems that nobody has control over.

On a related note, what does the following clause mean. This is a clause in the lease:

"PROVISO for re-entry by the said Landlord on nonpayment of rent or nonperformance of convenants."

Does this mean I can go in without notice? Can I change the locks? That sounds too good to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenitorico

On a related note, what does the following clause mean. This is a clause in the lease:

"PROVISO for re-entry by the said Landlord on nonpayment of rent or nonperformance of convenants."

Does this mean I can go in without notice? Can I change the locks? That sounds too good to be true.

I'm not positive on what it means. If you're right in your assumption, it's still not legal to do. I could have you sign a piece of paper that says I only have to give you 5 minutes notice to vacate an apartment; the law says it's 30 days so your signature means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenitorico

... Even though the lease states that “there shall be no reduction in rent” for personal property damages .... Though this has nothing to do with my law suit, can she blindside me in court with, “this is why I'm withholding rent”.

It looks like she is making an informal counter-claim for the damage to the personal property. She can be evicted for non-payment, yet recover for the damages (as a setoff against rent due).

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenitorico

On a related note, what does the following clause mean. This is a clause in the lease:

"PROVISO for re-entry by the said Landlord on nonpayment of rent or nonperformance of convenants."

Does this mean I can go in without notice? Can I change the locks? That sounds too good to be true.

The language you quoted looks like a title to a paragraph of the lease. There should be some verbage following it telling you what you can do in the event of non-payment.

I would expect a sentence or two, following that title, to say something like "landlord may enter the premises, after giving [such-and-such] notice, if tenant has failed to pay rent when due, for the purpose of [whatever]." Without such verbiage, the "PROVISO" is meaningless.

If this is all it says, it looks like whoever drafted it didn't understand what it means either.