A landlord who claimed his former tenant caused him to lose thousands of dollars in potential rental income walked away from Supreme Court yesterday with a judgment of just under $2,000 - a far cry from the $39,000 he was seeking.

In a case before Puisne Judge Phillip Storr, Rodney Smith, of Spring Hill Close, Warwick said he was suing 32-year-old Carlos Sousa, of Pembroke, after he alleged that the man's dog was deterring people from renting a dwelling located at 12 Glenwood Park Lane in Warwick.

Mr. Smith claimed that he lost rent from his main house for June, July, and August 2001. In addition, he sought compensation for cleaning the apartment after Sousa vacated it, lost wages and legal fees.

Mr. Smith, who represented himself, recalled how Sousa signed a lease to rent the lower apartment on the property. A clause in the document stipulated that no animals would be allowed in the apartment unless written consent was given by the landlord.

According to Mr. Smith, when Sousa and his wife moved in on May 1, 2000, Sousa informed him that he had a dog that he was having difficulty housing, but that he was doing all that he could to remedy the situation.

"So I told Sousa that he could bring the dog, but if there were any smells or noises, it would have to go," Mr. Smith testified.

Mr. Smith said that weeks after he gave the Sousas permission to keep the dog temporarily, the upstairs neighbours complained that the dog was barking a lot, so in turn he told the couple the animal would have to be removed from the premises immediately.

But Mr. Smith adde that in December 2000 he went to visit the Sousas to collect rent, only to discover that the dog was again living in the apartment.

"Mr. Sousa said he had difficulty with the dog," said Mr. Smith. "He said that keeping it in a kennel was expensive and that the animal had taken ill."

Again, Mr. Smith said he gave the couple time to find alternative living arrangements for the Pit Bull, and again the occupiers of the main house complained but this time said "they were terrified to see a dog on their premises", as they had spotted the animal in the immediate vicinity of their home. The tenants were paying Mr. Smith $6,000 per month in rent and told him they would move out if the dog remained. Subsequently, in March, Mr. Smith sent Sousa and his wife a letter asking them to vacate the apartment by May 31, 2001, but that the dog had to be removed from the home immediately.

But, according to Mr. Smith, his request fell on deaf ears as he took the Sousas to court last year. There, an agreement was made that the dog had to be off the property by July 31 and couple could stay on as tenants as long as the animal was gone.

By this time, the occupiers of Mr. Smith's main house had vacated the property due to an employment opportunity overseas. It was then, Mr. Smith said, that he had problems finding another tenant because several times after the house was looked at, people said "We like the house, but we have children and we don't want them to be around a vicious dog".

Mr. Smith admitted that he had an offer from a man who said that he would rent the house for $6,000 a month from June 1, 2001 or whenever the dog left the premises, which ever came first. He further testified that the man did not move into the house because there were other conditions that Mr. Smith could not meet.

"I had difficult time finding renters once the former tenants moved out," he said.

"But the dog did not have any bearing on the August rent," said lawyer Richard Horseman, who represented Sousa. "Didn't you agree thereafter to accept $8,000 from another man who wanted to rent the house?"

Mr. Smith admitted that he did.

"So, you in fact, did not lose any income," asked Mr. Horseman. "You would have received $80,000 from Mr. Blanca for ten months' rent, compared to $72,000 if you would have rented it to Mr. Voth for one year, and you claim that you lost income? In fact, the dog did you a favour."

In his judgment, Mr. Storr said that while he agreed that the dog had been kept on the premises without written consent, he did not believe that the animal had any bearing on the contract that was honoured from August 1.

"Had the tenant not been in breach of the agreement, Mr. Smith would have been able to rent the house for $6,000 a month, but on August 1, he was able to rent it for $8,000 a month....Mr. Smith suffered no loss."

However, Mr. Storr did award Mr. Smith just under $2,000 for damage to the apartment, cleaning materials and labour, stamp duty and general inconvenience.