On April 9, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that acommercial landlord was entitled to recover certain portions ofunpaid additional rent under a lease agreement but limited thelandlord's recovery based on the statute of limitations. While thedecision was nonprecedential, the case provides helpful guidance topractitioners in determining when claims for rent should be broughtagainst a tenant in a commercial lease agreement and emphasizes theimportance of timely filing any claims under a lease agreement forunpaid rent.

In Tsung Tsin Association v. Luen Fong Produce, alandlord alleged that its commercial tenant, a grocery store inPhiladelphia's Chinatown, failed to pay additional rent as requiredunder the lease agreement. In 1995, the landlord and the tenantentered into a multiyear commercial lease agreement that requiredthe tenant to pay the landlord for additional rent, includingincreases in property taxes, use and occupancy taxes, and water,sewer, and gas expenses. The landlord and the tenant then enteredinto a new lease agreement in 2003, which was determined by thecourt to supplant the original lease agreement and govern therelationship between the parties in the dispute. Notably, the newlease agreement only required the tenant to pay increases inproperty taxes and use and occupancy taxes. Payment of water andsewer expenses were only required if certain conditions under thelease agreement were met.