Neale v Jennings

 Neale v Jennings

ECCLESIASTICAL: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent

COURT OF APPEAL

SCOTT, MACKINNON AND MORTON LJJ

18 JANUARY 1946

Ecclesiastical Law – Cottage in rectory grounds – Whether necessary for convenient occupation of rectory – Whether Rent Restriction Acts applicable –

Pluralities Act, 1838 (c 106), s 59.

Landlord and Tenant – Rent restriction – Cottage in rectory grounds – Claim for possession by rector – Whether necessary for convenient occupation of

rectory – Question of fact – Pluralities Act, 1838 (c 106), s 59.

The appellant, the rector of a parish in Westmorland since 1938, occupied the large rectory, which contained in all 22 rooms. He was a bachelor, but shared

the house with an army officer and his wife and their 2 children, and there were also living in the house a man and wife who rendered certain domestic

services. The respondent had for many years been the tenant, at a rent of 2s 6d a week, of a cottage in the grounds of the rectory, which were 3 1/2 acres in

extent. The occupants of the cottage, which was situated about 20 years from the house, were the respondent, his wife, 3 children and a brother-in-law. The

appellant gave notice, expiring on 14 July 1945, to terminate the tenancy, on the ground that he required the cottage for a man and wife, whom he intended to

employ as gardener-handyman and domestic servant respectively. In an action for possession the appellant relied on the provisions of the Pluralities Act,

1938, s 59. The county court judge refused an order for possession, holding that the cottage was not necessary for the convenient occupation of the rectory

within the meaning of that section:—

Held – Whether or not possession of the cottage was necessary for the convenient occupation of the rectory was a question of fact, and, as the county court

judge had properly directed himself to the determination of this fact, his finding in favour of the respondent should not be disturbed.

Notes

The social conditions in which large country rectories exist today differ materially from those which obtained at the date of the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the

question of what buildings are necessary to their enjoyment must be decided as a question of fact at the present time.

As to Premises Within the Rent Restriction Acts, see Halsbury, Hailsham Edn, Vol 20, pp 312–314, para 369; and for Cases, see Digest, Vol 31, pp 557,

558, Nos 7042–7053.

Case referred to in judgments

The Bishop of Gloucester v Cunnington [1943] 1 All ER 61, [1943] 1 KB 101, 112 LJKB 151, 168 LT 68.

Appeal

All England Law Reports 1936 - books on screen™

All ER 1946 Volume 1

Preamble

Appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of His Honour Judge Allsebrook given at Appleby County Court, on 22 October 1945. The facts are sufficiently set

out in the judgment of Scott LJ.

Malcolm Wright for the appellant.

G P Glanfield for the respondent.

18 January 1946. The following judgments were delivered.

SCOTT LJ. The question is whether the Rent Restriction Acts apply to a cottage in the grounds of the rectory of Longmarton, in Westmorland. That turns on

the principle laid down by this court in Bishop of Gloucester v Cunnington. The decision there was that in a case where the Pluralities Act, 1838, s 59, applies

the Rent Restriction Acts are not applicable. The question is whether the cottage is within the principle so laid down by this court because it is covered by the

wording of the Pluralities Act. That particular question and the form in which it arises in this case has not come before the court before.

Sect 59 enacts that:

‘Any agreement made for the letting of the house of residence, or the buildings, gardens, orchards, or appurtenances necessary for the convenient

occupation of the same, belonging to any benefice, to which house of residence any spiritual person may be required, by order of the bishop … to

proceed and to reside therein …’

shall be subject to special legislation as to the right of letting and so on.

If this cottage in the grounds of the rectory building is a building or appurtenance necessary for the convenient occupation of the house of residence, then

this cottage is within the provisions of that special legislation, but if it does not come within that category it is not and the Rent Act applies.

􀂭 224􀀉

In this case the rector wanted the cottage for use by himself for the purpose of having a man and his wife whom he proposed to employ in and about the

rectory, and the question arises whether the rector was entitled to get possession on a notice to quit. The judge held that he was not entitled, because, in the

circumstances of the case, he took the view that the cottage was not necessary for the convenient occupation of the house.

In my view the question whether a particular building is or is not necessary is a question of fact. The judge found the fact in favour of the tenant and

against the rector. Prima facie that finding of fact is conclusive and if it is a finding of fact without any misdirection or law by the judge this court cannot

interfere with it. In my view it was a finding of that kind.

What counsel has urged on us is that the reason given by the judge shows that he was misinterpreting sect 59. The judge held that in the circumstances of

the case it was not necessary for the convenient occupation of the rectory because the rector could quite easily have used rooms in the rectory for the purpose

of housing the married couple he wanted to employ. The rectory was a very large house of 22 rooms of which 19 were furnished, and the county court judge

thought that in so large a house it was not possible to say that the inconvenience of having the couple in the house was such as to compel him to hold that the

cottage was necessary for the convenient occupation by the rector of his own house. In taking that view I think he was not in any way misdirecting himself. If

he was not, the finding is conclusive on this court.

The Act of 1838 was passed at a time when many rectories were very large buildings but at a time when rectors were expected to give great hospitality

and have many people staying with them from time to time in the house. But tempora mutantur. Today these large houses are not a convenience to the rectors

for the purpose of hospitality, but a very great burden, because of the changed financial position of many rectors. That aspect cannot be forgotten in

considering the proper meaning of the word “necessary.” I think “necessary” must be read according to the particular circumstances of the time and the

rectory to be considered.

The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

MACKINNON and MORTON LJJ agreed.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors: Beachcroft & Co agents for William Scorer, Appelby (for the appellant); Bell, Brodrick & Gray agents for Hewitson & Harker, Appleby (for the

respondent).

C StJ Nicholson Esq Barrister.

[1946] 1 All ER 225