Possession of flat — Tenant’s appeal against County Court Judge’s order — Finding that rent had not been paid — Question of reasonableness of making order for possession — Appeal dismissed
The Court dismissed this appeal by Mr Gilbert France, the tenant of a flat at 86, Cambridge Street, Westminster, against the order of Judge Dale at Westminster County Court granting possession of the flat to the landlord, Mr George Theophile Tideswell Liffen.
Mr France conducted his own appeal; Mr Brian Power (instructed by Messrs Piper, Smith & Piper) represented the respondent landlord.
The case was before the Court of Appeal on October 8, 1952, and was reported in THE ESTATES GAZETTE of October 18, 1952. It had been remitted to the County Court for a further hearing of the plaintiff’s claim so far as it was based on alleged arrears of rent. Judge Dale made a possession order on December 17, 1952, holding that there was proof that some rent had not been paid. The claim was based on the first schedule to the Rent Act, 1933, which provides that a possession order may be made if rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid.
Lord Justice Denning, giving judgment, said that Mr France became the tenant of the flat in 1949, and he and Mr Liffen did not get on well. In February, 1952, notice to quit was served, and later the landlord claimed possession on the grounds of non-payment of rent and that Mr France had been guilty of conduct which was a nuisance and annoyance. An order was made, and an appeal by Mr France was allowed, on the issue of nuisance. The case was remitted to the County Court Judge in order that he could determine the question of non-payment of rent, and whether it was reasonable to make a possession order. Judge Dale had said that “the tenant was rude and obstructive in every way. It would be intolerable to continue the situation of landlord and tenant. The tenant’s conduct to the landlord has made the situation impossible.”
From time to time, said Lord Justice Denning, the tenant was late in paying the rent, but before the notice to quit expired he had paid all the rent due up to that date. As to rent which subsequently became due, there was evidence on which the Judge could find that rent lawfully due from the tenant had not been paid. The Judge had to consider whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession, the question of reasonableness being a matter for him to decide. In the Judge’s view, the tenant was continually making trouble. He made complaints about the premises, and withheld rent on that account.
“The Judge has seen these parties on two occasions,” continued his Lordship, “and he was in a better position than we are to judge. Once the condition precedent of non-payment of rent has been found, I do not see that this Court can interfere with the judgment on reasonableness. I think the appeal should be dismissed.”
Lords Justices Morris and Romer agreed.
