Eyre v Haynes

 Eyre v Haynes

LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent

COURT OF APPEAL

SCOTT, MACKINNON AND TUCKER LJJ

5 NOVEMBER 1945

All England Law Reports 1936 - books on screen™

All ER 1946 Volume 1

Preamble

Landlord and Tenant – Rent restriction – House originally not within 1939 Act – Subsequent damage by enemy action – Rateable value reduced – Whether

brought within the protection of the Act – New house – Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939 (c 17), ss 3(1), 7(1).

A London house, which had been let for a number of years at a rent beyond the limit of the Rent Restriction Acts, was seriously damaged by enemy action in

1940, and the immediate neighbourhood practically devastated. On 8 March 1943, on the expiration of the previous tenancy, the tenant entered into a fresh

agreement with the landlords at a lower rent, and later in the same year the rateable value was reduced to £76 per annum. On appeal from an order for

possession made by a county court judge it was contended that, by reason of the damage and reduction in value, the house was a new house within the Rent

and Mortgage Interest Restructions Act, 1939, let for the first time on 8 March 1943:—

Held – The question whether it was or was not the same house was a question of fact, and the county court judge was entitled to hold, on the evidence before

him, that, in spite of the extensive damage, the house 􀂭 225􀀉 remained the same house as it was at the date when the 1939 Act came into force, at which date

it was let at a rent which put in outside the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts. The appeal therefore failed.

Notes

This is a point of some importance in connection with bombed property. It is held to be a question of fact whether the damage by enemy action is sufficient to

destroy the identity of the premises, so as to make a fresh lease entered into between the same parties a lease of a new house within the Rent Restriction Act.

For Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, s 3(1), see Halsbury’s Statutes, Vol 32, p 971.

Appeal

Appeal from the judgment of His Honour Judge Collingwood sitting at Bloomsbury County Court, given on 10 October 1945, whereby he adjudged that the

plaintiff should recover from the defendant possession of a dwelling house known as 38, St John’s Wood Park, London. The facts are sufficiently set out in

the judgment of Scott LJ.

Cecil Binney for the appellant.

F W Beney KC and R E L Parry for the respondent.

5 November 1945. The following judgments were delivered.

SCOTT LJ. This is an appeal from an order for possession of a house. At the date the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, came into force the

house was rated at £113 per annum and was, therefore, outside the Act. On 8 March 1943, the tenant made a new agreement with the landlord at a reduced

rent and in August of that year the rateable value was reduced to £76 per annum. It was contended that the house was no longer the same house by reason of

war damage and that the judge should have treated it as within the protection of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts. The question is whether the

house can be said to be a new house let for the first time, or is the same as before the war damage.

There was no evidence as to the cause of the reduction in the rateable value, which might have been due to the deterioration of the neighbourhood, and

not to the damage to the house.

The county court judge held that the damage was not enough to prevent the house remaining the same house as before the damage. Whether it was or not

is a question of fact. I am of the opinion that on the evidence before him the judge was entitled to hold as he did, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

MACKINNON and TUCKER LJJ agreed.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors: Hancock and Scott (for the appellant); Lee and Pembertons (for the respondent).

C StJ Nicholson Esq Barrister.

[1946] 1 All ER 226