Brewers granted possession — Proviso in lease as to notice to quit not inconsistent with yearly tenancy
The defence of Mr William Haywood, licensee of the Elm Tree beer-house, New Heston Road, Heston, Middlesex, to the claim by Messrs H&G Simonds, Ltd, brewers, for possession of the premises, said that a proviso in the tenancy agreement as to notice to quit was inconsistent with a yearly tenancy.
Mr Rodger Winn (instructed by Messrs Champion & Co, agents for Messrs Turberville Smith & Co, Uxbridge) appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr Montague Waters (instructed by Messrs Joseph Lilly & Co) was for the defendant.
Under an agreement of June, 1935, the premises were let to defendant from July 4, 1935, to October 3, 1935, and thereafter from year to year at the yearly rent of £40. Three months’ notice to terminate the tenancy was given on July 3, 1947, in accordance with the proviso that the tenancy was terminable at and after October 3, 1935, by three months’ notice on either side.
Mr Justice Lynskey, giving judgment, said the only point argued and arising from the defendant’s contention was that the notice was bad as it was not given at the proper time. The agreement was subject to termination of the tenancy by either party giving three months’ notice. Defendant’s contention was that it created a tenancy first for three months, from July to October, followed by a term certain of twelve months at least, and that after October, 1935, it was a yearly tenancy which, in law, could be terminated only by six months’ notice expiring on the anniversary of the termination on the first day of the tenancy. It was said for the defendant that the proviso was inconsistent with and repugnant to the grant of a tenancy of at least 15 months certain and was void, not merely so far as the 15 months were concerned, but for the whole period during which the tenancy agreement subsisted. His Lordship was being asked, in effect, in the words of one of the judges in the case cited in re Threlfall, 16, Chancery, p279, not to construe a deed but to contradict it for the purpose of entirely destroying the intention of the parties to it. Apart from the authorities, his Lordship would have thought the agreement was quite clear. It was for a three months’ tenancy and the continuance of the tenancy from year to year, subject to termination as mentioned in the proviso. He would have though that it was clear and unambiguous and that the parties knew exactly what they were expressing. His task was to find out what the parties meant when they entered into the agreement. He was not satisfied, on the authorities, that the proviso was repugnant or inconsistent. He knew of no established proposition which prevented parties from entering into an agreement to terminate an annual tenancy within the first year of the tenancy. Plaintiffs were entitled to possession.
Judgment for possession on February 29, and mesne profits of £11 10s 0d, was entered accordingly.
