Landlord denies claims he wielded hammer or coerced family of eight to vacate property
High Court Reporter
A landlord strongly denies he unlawfully evicted a family of eight while wielding a hammer, claiming instead he acted in an “honourable manner” at all times.
Imtiaz Khan, who is also a practising solicitor and principal of Dublin-based IMK Law, told the court he went to the rental property in Ongar Village, west Dublin, for a “peaceful and voluntary handover”.
Contrary to allegations made by tenant Muhammad Amjad, no “forceful removal” occurred, Khan said, adding he “did not hold a hammer” or “any other object in hand from entry to exit”.
The court heard Amjad stands over his claims, and Judge Brian Cregan noted the pictures painted by the opposing sides are “sharply divergent”.
Amjad, represented by RNL Solicitors, alleged Khan arrived at the rental property accompanied by eight others and carrying a hammer.
He alleged Khan issued “explicit threats to strike me if I did not vacate within three minutes”. He said his children were “visibly traumatised” after witnessing the incident and the family could not regain access.
Amjad said Khan and IMK Property had issued a purported notice of termination, but he was advised it was invalid.
Allegations
After hearing Amjad’s allegations earlier this month, Cregan granted him temporary orders restraining Khan or IMK Property from interfering with the family’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. He ordered the landlords to facilitate their re-entry to the home.
Khan and IMK Property on Tuesday told the court Amjad’s claims are “extremely serious and entirely untrue”, causing “considerable stress and reputational damage”.
In a sworn statement to the court, Khan alleged no incident was reported to gardaí about the events of February 28th. He claimed that an inspection on behalf of Fingal County Council in February 2025 found that the property was not compliant with regulations and required a gas safety check and the installation of carbon monoxide and smoke alarms.
The property had to be vacated so works could be safely carried out, and IMK Property determined the tenancy should be terminated due to the “extensive nature” of the repairs, he said.
He said the tenants were properly served with notice of lease termination and there was no “coercive or intimidatory campaign” as alleged by Amjad. The family had agreed the property could be handed over on February 28th, Khan claimed, adding Amjad was not “coerced” into sending a message confirming this.
Unlawful eviction
Khan denied an unlawful eviction occurred because new rental laws were due to come into force two days later.
He said the case must be viewed in light of the plaintiff’s lawyers, RNL Solicitors, operating in substantially the same client pool as his company, IMK Law. He said he fears RNL’s “zeal” has “tainted” the proceedings.
Khan’s barrister, Alan Cormack, said his client’s primary concern has been the “safety and welfare” of Amjad’s children and other residents of the complex.
David O’Brien, counsel for Amjad, said Khan’s version of events is “not accepted … by any stretch”.
The case returns in mid-April when a date is expected to be scheduled for the court to hear Amjad’s application for longer-term orders. The court’s earlier short-term orders remain in force until then.
