Possession by tenant of house — Extension of stay of execution refused
This was an application in connection with an action heard by Mr Justice Denning on February 2, 1948 (reported in THE ESTATES GAZETTE of February 7, 1948).
Mr Justice Denning then held that Mrs Violet Mary Simper (widow) and her son, Mr Stanley Joseph Simper, living in requisitioned property at St John’s Road, Welling, Kent, were entitled to possession of No 47, Danson Lane, Welling, which was now occupied by the owner, Mr Percy William Coombs. His Lordship was told that the original house was bombed, and Mr Coombs went into possession of the rebuilt premises. The Judge held that the Simpers, who were tenants of the first house, were still tenants of the new house because they had not been given notice to quit and, therefore, were entitled to possession.
On the application, Mr HV Lloyd-Jones (instructed by Messrs Dehn & Lauderdale, agents for Messrs Dehn, Lauderdale & Weedon, of Welling) appeared for Mr Coombs; Mr ES Fay (instructed by Messrs Freshfields) represented Mrs Simper and Mr Simper.
Mr Lloyd-Jones now asked for an extension of the stay of execution of the order for Mr Coombs to give up possession. The Sheriff, he said, had already intimated that Mr Coombs must go by the following Wednesday, and he had no alternative accommodation. Mr Coombs had now given notice to quit to the Simpers. The ground for the application was that Mr Coombs claimed that he was entitled to possession because of greater hardship, and the matter had to go to the County Court for decision.
If the extension were not granted, Mr Coombs, his wife, his 11 years old daughter and his 70 years old mother-in-law would be put into the street.
Mr Fay said that Mrs Simper and her son would also have to leave their requisitioned accommodation because of its dilapidated condition.
Mr Lloyd-Jones pointed out that if Mr Coombs were now ejected and then won his County Court claim, the situation would be farcical.
Mr Justice Denning replied that he had no discretion in the matter because Mr Coombs was in possession without legal authority, and was not entitled to protection under the Rent Acts. He would not extend the time and Mr Coombs would have to go to a hotel if necessary. He thought, however, that a very early date should be fixed for the County Court proceedings.
The application was accordingly refused, with costs.
