The applicants argued that the award of legal fees would be within the Tribunal`s control, even if they are included in a contract; that the Tribunal was charged with determining whether the taxes in the leases were reasonable; that the defendants of the company should absolutely not be allowed to recover fees because they have used the services of the in-house lawyer; that the costs set by the leases were excessive in relation to the actual cost of the in-house lawyer`s interest; and that royalties have been prohibited by the ethical rule of allocating costs to non-lawyers. Accordingly, the applicants submitted that they had sufficiently stated in their appeals that they would support discharge under the Anti-Eviction Act, the CFA, and on the basis of their theory of negligence. Alternatively, they requested that any dismissal of their appeal be left without prejudice. We therefore refused to allow eviction on the basis of a unilateral switch from a lessor to a tenancy agreement, since it is not possible for the tenant to question the relevance of this amendment. 447 Assocs, supra, 115 N.J. at 529-31. In addition, we have come to the conclusion that, in order to be consistent with the general emphasis on the adequacy of the law, id. with 531, and the general requirement that the lessor be deemed adequate in a summary expropriation proceeding, the burden of proof of the change in the tenancy conditions also applies to the landlord and not to the tenant. In summary, a renter uses a claim form, usually included in the preprinted format as an annex to court rules, see Verified Complaint Nonpayment of Rent, Pressler-Verniero, supra, Appendix XI-X to Rule 6:3-4 (c), and accessible on the Judiciary website, available at www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules which contains a combination of boxes to check and fill out lines. Using the form, the landlord is able to identify the existence and relevant conditions of a tenancy agreement, including the monthly amount of rent, the last month for which the rent was paid and the total amount of rent owed. Since the Anti-Eviction Act only authorizes eviction for the legal reasons indicated, landlords who wish to evict forced evictions for non-payment of rent can technically only look at the amount of rent owed and due, and it is this calculation that is used to determine the parties` ownership obligations. Often, however, leases contain other conditions for paying rent, including late fees and, as in this case, legal fees to be paid in the event that the lessor is required to take legal action against the tenant for unpaid rent.
Although the law refers only to rent, see ibid., we have decided that parties to a rental agreement may treat legal fees and other eviction-related costs as additional rent[,], supra, 171 N.J. to 586 (quoting Harris, supra, 155 N.J. to 234) (additional citations omitted). Plaintiff Green and the Permenters introduced new versions of the lease in 2010, which include an amendment to the legal fees provision. The 2010 leases made available: This dispute, which comes to us by the defendant`s request for replacement for certification, requires us to argue the objective of including provisions relating to the setting of legal fees in the leases, the manner in which these fees are verified on adequacy, and the defendants sufficient, as these are claims against the company and individual defendants for consumer fraud and negligence.