Possession of a house — Alternative accommodation offered — County Court Judge holds it not reasonably suitable — Owner’s appeal — Judgment for respondent
The question whether alternative accommodation offered by a house owner seeking possession of his property was reasonably suitable for the tenant was the subject of this appeal.
Mr Arthur Ernest Smith, of Napier Road, Maidenhead, Berks, claimed possession of 41, Court House Road, Maidenhead. In doing so he offered the tenant, Mr Raymond Combes, the ground floor rooms of the same house with use of the bathroom, garage and garden, at half the rent Mr Combes was paying for the whole house.
Judge Rawlins, at Windsor County Court, gave judgment for the tenant, with costs. He found that it would be reasonable to make an order for possession if the alternative accommodation offered were suitable, but he found that it was not suitable for the needs of Mr Combes as to extent or character.
Mr Smith appealed against this decision.
Mr Charles Burke (instructed by Messrs Rexworthy, Bonser & Wadkin, agents for Messrs Durnford & Gale, of Windsor) appeared for Mr Smith; Mr Victor Russell (instructed by Mr Sidney C Elphick, agent for Mr John B Borer, of Windsor) represented by Mr Combes.
Mr Burke said Mr Smith bought the house before his marriage in 1948, with Mr Combes as the sitting tenant at a weekly rent of 29s 6d. Notice to quit was served on Mr Combes in July, 1949, Mr Smith requiring the house for his own use as his wife had been advised by the doctor to have a baby for the benefit of her health. They were living in one furnished room.
He submitted that the Judge was wrong in taking into account visits of a young nephew and friends in considering the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Bucknill said that, although it might be irrelevant to consider Mr Combes’s nephew and friends from the point of view of the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered, it was relevant in considering whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession.
He thought the Judge was in error in taking the visits of the nephew and friends into account on the question of the suitability of the alternative accommodation, but he would probably have given weight to it if he had considered it in connection with the reasonableness of making an order.
The judge was technically in error and misdirected himself in that he considered the nephew and friends under the wrong heading, but it would be wrong to order a new trial, as the Judge would probably have come to the same judgment had he considered the matter correctly. The appeal should be dismissed.
Lord Justice Denning, agreeing, said that in a case like this the Judge should first consider whether the alternative accommodation offered was suitable. If it was, he should then consider whether it was reasonable to make an order. Some of the reasons the Judge gave for saying the accommodation was not suitable were not legitimate in that respect, but would be legitimate in considering reasonableness.
Hodson J concurred and the appeal was dismissed, with costs.
