Landlord’s claim for possession — Tenant’s covenant not to sub-let — Section 15(3) of Rent Restrictions Act, 1920 — Plea that premises were lawfully sub-let — Judgment for the defendant
In this action, Mr Peter Marche, of Park Road, St John’s Wood, NW, sued Mr Paris Christodoulakis, claiming possession of a maisonette at Aldridge Road Villas, Bayswater, W.
The defence was that the premises were lawfully sub-let to the defendant, and that he was entitled to remain.
Mr Lewis F Sturge (instructed by Mr Harold Button) appeared for the plaintiff; Mr G Howard (instructed by Messrs Landau and Co) represented the defendant.
Section 15(3) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, provides: “Where the interest of a tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies is determined… any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let shall… be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.”
Mr Surge, who cited a Court of Appeal case, Norman v Simpson (1945), 62, TLR 113, submitted that, when Mr Marche learned of a breach of agreement by his tenant in sub-letting to the defendant, he did not act in a way which converted the breach into something which was unlawful.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Pritchard said that the premises were let by Mr Marche to a Mrs Beeching in October, 1945, and it was admitted that a notice, determining the tenancy in October, 1947, was given. The tenant contracted not to sub-let without the landlord’s consent, and the landlord had the right of re-entry if there was a breach of that undertaking. His Lordship was satisfied that a sub-tenancy was created without Mr Marche’s knowledge and consent, and that he discovered it in July, 1947. He then knew that his tenant had broken her tenancy agreement, and that that breach gave him a right of re-entry. There was a meeting between Mr Marche and Mr Christodoulakis, and his Lordship was satisfied that plaintiff hoped to get the defendant as his tenant. After Mr Marche had discovered the breach of covenant, he negotiated to take on the defendant as his tenant when Mrs Beeching could be got rid of.
In those circumstances it was said that the defendant came within the terms of Section 15(3) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, and the real point was whether the facts of the case brought it within the decision of the Court of Appeal in Norman v Simpson (62, TLR 113, and 1946, 1 KB 158).
“As I read the judgment of the majority of the Court in that case,” continued Mr Justice Pritchard, “the law which binds me is that, although a sub-tenancy may in its inception be unlawful, because the tenant has created the sub-tenancy without the consent or knowledge of his landlord, there may come a change, and the time which is material to consider is the time immediately before the determination of the head lease. If at that time a landlord has, by his action or his forbearance, elected to treat the lease as subsisting, and has not exercised rights he might have under the lease, such as the right of re-entry, then there would be no subsisting right of re-entry immediately before the determination of the term, and if that is the case the sub-lease, although unlawful in its inception, might be regarded, and ought to be regarded, as a lawful sub-letting.”
Stating that he was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Judge said that in this case the defendant must be regarded as the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.
Judgment was entered for the defendants, with costs.
