Section 29 (4) provides that if a tenant vacates the premises prior to the end of the period, the landlord or any member of his family may enter into occupation of the premises, or the landlord may let such premises to any other tenant. Voluntary vacation of the premises and forced displacement are, however, two entirely different situations. Again it will have to be left to courts to decide this issue on a case-by-case basis. Our view is that a mediatory or conciliatory body be set up to deal with issues of this nature. ii) Another Tenant in occupation During the operation of a previous tenancy agreement, the owner cannot enter into a new agreement, and should not let the premises to another person. On the basis of the existing tenancy agreement, the returning tenant can file an action against the present tenant and for damages against the owner. iii) Unrelated third person in occupation Section 17 of the Rent Act gives protection to a tenant from a landlord or other person against interference of any sort in the occupation or use of any premises by the tenant, or the person in occupation, or in any manner preventing access to such premises by a tenant or other person. A tenant will not, however, be able to regain possession of the tenanted property if it has been completely destroyed and a new building constructed. 4) Property completely or partially damaged and unable to be occupied Since a large number of houses have been completely or partially damaged, returning refugees and IDPs are often unable to occupy them. They are also without means to rebuild their properties in the absence of compensation. Guiding Principle 21 on Internally Displaced Persons casts a burden on the State to protect the properties of the displaced. The applicable laws are: Housing and Town Improvement Act No.38 of 1980; Urban Development Authority Law No.41 of 1978 amended by Act No.70 of 1979 and Act No. 4 of 1982. The main problem faced by returning refugees and IDPs in rebuilding or repairing their houses is the lack of financial assistance. Although, in theory, one might be able to sue either the State or the person responsible for the damage caused to the property, in practice this may not be possible for various reasons. Therefore this situation can only be addressed by a scheme of compensation or other material assistance to those affected. At present the State is paying an inadequate amount of compensation and that, too, is not in a consistent manner. Proof of ownership of property is necessary for a claim to compensation. Field studies reveal, however, that a sizeable number of persons in the conflict-affected areas do not have documentation to prove ownership. Our recommendation is that the State should devise a scheme for compensation that is adequate to repair fully or rebuild houses. In cases where the owner is unable to furnish the necessary documentation, other secondary evidence of ownership ought to be accepted. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that compensation is used appropriately. Section 6(1) of the Housing and Town Improvement Act does not provide for alterations of any kind (as listed in sub-section (2)) without the written consent of the chairman of the local authority. Therefore, if repairs or reconstruction involve any deviation from the original approved plan, the relevant local authority must first approve the new plan. 11