Maddox Properties Ltd v Klass

 

Maddox Properties Ltd v Klass

LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

DENNING J

1 MARCH 1946

Landlord and Tenant – Rent restriction – Furnished letting – Whether substantial portion of rent for use of furniture – Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (c 17), s 2(1), proviso (i) – Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923 (c 32), s 10(1).

The plaintiffs let to the defendant for a period of just over a year, at a rent of £300 a year, a flat in Brighton, together with certain fixtures, furniture and effects which were specified in an inventory signed by both parties. At the expiration of the tenancy the tenant claimed to be protected by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, s 12(2), proviso (i), as amended by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, s 10(1), and refused to vacate the flat. The flat consisted of a reception room, two bedrooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. At the date of the letting the reception room had in it pairs of curtains and two tables and little in the way of chairs or settees; one bedroom had a carpet, a double bed and all bedding, the other a single bed, curtains and all bedding; the kitchen had a number of kitchen utensils and some china, glass and plate. In addition there were some articles not specified in the inventory but which, having regard to Gray v Fidler, had to be brought within the head of furniture, viz, fixed cupboards, a refrigerator and a cooker. The estimated value of the furniture included in the inventory was £50 a year, and, including the articles omitted from it, £60 to £65 a year, approximately between 17 and 20 per cent of the whole rent (including rates):—

Held – Having regard to the value and to the nature of the furniture, the amount of rent which was fairly attributable to its use formed a substantial portion of the whole rent; consequently, the flat was not protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession.

Notes

The court again considers what constitutes a furnished flat for the purposes of rent restriction. The letting included, in addition to the fixed cupboards, refrigerator and cooker brought in by the decision in Gray v Fidler, furniture in the popular sense of the word, and this distinguishes the case from Property 

Holding Co v Mischeff, p 406, ante. The value of all this furniture is found to be approximately 20 per cent of the rent, and this is held to be a “substantial” portion of the rent, so as to make it a furnished letting.

As to Furnished Lettings, see Halsbury, Hailsham Edn, Vol 20, p 314, para 370; and for Cases, see Digest, Vol 31, pp 560, 561, Nos 7078–7084.

Case referred to in judgment

Gray v Fidler [1943] 2 All ER 289, [1943] 1 KB 694, 169 LT 193.

Action

Action by the landlord to recover possession of a furnished flat. The facts are fully set out in the judgment.

H V Lloyd-Jones for the plaintiff.

All England Law Reports 1936 - books on screen™

All ER 1946 Volume 1

Preamble

Phineas Quass for the defendant.

1 March 1946. The following judgment was delivered.

DENNING J. By an agreement made 15 March 1944, the plaintiffs let to the defendant a flat, No 12, Embassy Court, King’s Road, Brighton, together with certain fixtures, furniture and effects, which were specified in an inventory signed by the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and by the defendant, through his wife, on the other hand; and the period was for one year and thirteen days at a rent of £300 a year.

At the end of the tenancy the defendant did not vacate. He claimed that the premises were within the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and whether they are so or not depends on whether they were bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of the use of furniture, and for that purpose it is provided in sect 10(1) of the 1923 Act that:

‘… a dwelling-house [which includes this flat] shall not be deemed to be bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of … the use of furniture unless the amount of rent which is fairly attributable to … the use of the furniture. regard being had to the value of the same to the tenant, forms a substantial portion of the whole rent.’

In considering the value of the furniture to the tenant it is necessary to look at the nature of these articles which were specified in the inventory and let to the tenant. The flat consisted of a reception room, two bedrooms, a kitchen 􀂭 487􀀉 and a bathroom. The reception room contained pairs of curtains, a table and a tea-table, and not much in the way of chairs or settees, or anything of that kind. The south bedroom had a carpet, a double bed, all the bedding; not much more. The back bedroom had a single bed, curtains, all bedding, and so forth; not much more. The kitchen had quite a number of frying pans, brushes, and so on, a dinner service, a tea service, a coffee set, some glass and some plate in the way of knives, forks, spoons. That was the substance of the furniture in the flat as specified in the inventory. In addition, there were some articles not specified in the inventory, but owing to a decision of the Court of Appeal in Gray v Fidler, to be brought within the head of furniture there were fixed cupboards, a refrigerator and a cooker.

The defendant when he went in soon found that he had to supplement the furniture that was there. He had to buy quite a fair amount; a settee, and so on, chairs for the reception room, sideboards, and other things; but it seems plain to me, having regard to the nature of the furniture which I have enumerated, that it was of some considerable value to the tenant, and I have to assess what is the amount of rent fairly attributable to the furniture. I have had estimates given to me of its value on each side, and I think, on the whole, that 20 per cent of the value of the ordinary furniture is quite a fair basis to assess rent for furniture, 10 per cent for the fixed cupboards, and 15 per cent for the refrigerator and cooker. Those percentages were common ground between the parties. Approaching the matter on that basis, out of the total rent of £300 a fair figure for this furniture, apart from what I may call the real fixtures, was £50 a year, and if I include the fixed cupboards, and so forth, was £60 to £65 a year.

The question is does that form a substantial portion of the whole rent? I am going to take this whole rent of £300, and I am not going to deduct the rates for the moment of £43. I am going to see whether those figures which I have given form a substantial portion of the whole rent. It will be seen that the figures I have given, £50 to £60, are somewhere in the region of 17 to 20 per cent of the whole rent. Having regard to the value of this furniture and to the nature of it, it forms a substantial portion of the whole rent, and therefore the case is one which is not within the Rent Restrictions Acts.

There will, accordingly, be judgment for the plaintiffs for possession and for mesne profits at the rate of £300 a year from 25 March 1945, until delivery of possession.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Solicitors: Judge, Hackman & Judge (for the plaintiffs); Goodwins (for the defendant).

P J Johnson Esq Barrister.

[1946] 1 All ER 488