The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling in a lease dispute involving Mahmoud Salha and Abu Ali Café, LLC, against 2020 Harwin 59 Shopping Centers, Ltd., Harwin Exchange Center, Inc., and Mohamed A. Sohani. The court ruled on October 16, 2026, that the appellants did not have grounds to claim breach of contract, fraud, or violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), nor were they entitled to recover attorney's fees.
This case matters because it clarifies the responsibilities of landlords and tenants in commercial leases, particularly regarding maintenance and repair obligations. It also addresses the enforceability of oral agreements related to leases and the application of the DTPA in commercial transactions.
Background
The dispute arose from a commercial lease signed on October 1, 2019, between Salha, representing Abu Ali Café, and Harwin Exchange Center, Inc., with Sohani acting as its president. The lease was for a restaurant space on Richmond Avenue in Houston and had a five-year term. It outlined specific responsibilities for both the landlord and tenant regarding repairs and maintenance.
The lease specified that the landlord was responsible for roof repairs, while the tenant had obligations for grounds maintenance, plumbing, and HVAC systems. Additionally, the lease included a clause that prohibited the tenant from subletting the premises without the landlord's written consent. The appellants claimed that Sohani made oral promises to allow them to sublease the property and that the landlord failed to maintain the premises, leading to significant expenses for the café.
After the appellants filed their lawsuit, the appellees sought summary judgment, arguing that the claims were not valid based on the terms of the lease and other legal principles. The trial court granted this motion, leading to the appeal.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, in its ruling, affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the appellees. The court found that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of breach of contract, fraud, or violations of the DTPA. The court stated, "The lease makes the landlord responsible for roof repairs. If repairs are needed that are the landlord’s responsibility to repair, the lease requires that 'Tenant promptly notify Landlord' in writing of the need for repair."
Furthermore, the court noted that the appellants failed to demonstrate that they had notified the landlord in writing about the need for roof repairs, which was a requirement under the lease. The court also ruled that the DTPA did not apply to the lease transaction because it involved a total consideration exceeding $500,000, which is a threshold for DTPA applicability.
In addition, the court dismissed the appellants' claims for quantum meruit, stating that such a claim is generally not available when a valid contract exists covering the same services. The judgment also included an award of $23,580 in attorney's fees to the appellees for their legal expenses.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for commercial lease agreements in Texas. It reinforces the idea that tenants must adhere strictly to the terms of their leases, particularly regarding maintenance and repair responsibilities. The court's decision also emphasizes that oral agreements related to lease terms are generally unenforceable if they contradict the written lease, a principle that could affect future lease negotiations and disputes.
The ruling sets a precedent for how courts may interpret similar lease agreements and the enforceability of various claims arising from them. It highlights the importance of clear communication and documentation in landlord-tenant relationships.
What's Next
The appellants have the option to appeal this ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, but it is unclear if they will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that could impact this decision.