3 edited body
source | link

The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

If they did not, then yes, it works the way you've been told because they do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same). Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.

If they did not, then yes, it works the way you've been told because they do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same). Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

If they did not, then yes, it works the way you've been told because they do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same). Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

2 The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.
source | link

Yes it works that way.

The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.

If they did not, then yes, it works the way you've been told because they do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same).

  Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

Yes it works that way.

The people you signed tenancy with do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same).

  Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

The answer depends on whether the people you signed tenancy with had the right to sublet.

If they did not, then yes, it works the way you've been told because they do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same). Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.

If they did and you can prove it, then you are a tenant and protected by the Tenancy Act.

1
source | link

Yes it works that way.

The people you signed tenancy with do not fall under the definition of landlord. You have been cheated by them (to see it clearly, consider the edge-case scenario if they were total strangers not having any relation to the property whatsoever — your case is essentially the same).

Unfortunately, you do not have any right to occupy the property. The only remedy is to sue the "landlords" for misleading you.