Supreme Court CLAIM GRANTED ON APPEAL

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28616, 19 June 1958, Page 16

Supreme Court CLAIM GRANTED ON APPEAL

Judgment Given For £l9O

An appeal against a Magistrate’s decision in a claim for £l9O arrears of rent was upheld by the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) in the Supreme Court yesterday. It was claimed by the appellant, John Cameron Lewis (Mr C. M. Roper) that the facts of the case did not support the i Magistrate’s conclusions and that he had been wrong in law. Mr K. Hadfield appeared for the. respondent George Ratcliff Parker.

Mr Roper said that in September, 1953, Lewis obtained tenancy of a vacant section at a rental of 10s a week. He cleared the section and fenced it and erected two huts on it. On March 3, 1955 he sub-let the section to Parker at a rent of £2 a week and Parker paid £44 advance rent. Lewis had claimed that he had the landlord’s consent to do this. Lewis’s right to sub-let property had, however, been questioned by Parker in July, 1955. Mr Roper said that Parker had admitted the sub-tenancy and that he paid rent up to August, 1955, but he denied that he still had possession as Lewis’s tenant. Parker had obtained a tenancy of the property from the landlord at a rental of £3 a week—-“by-passing the appellant.’’

Lewis considered that he was still the tenant of the property and that Parker was his subtenant, Mr Roper said. Lewis had never been given notice to quit.

The appellant claimed that there was no evidence that the basic rent from the property was 10s a week or that his was the first tenancy. Lewis was entitled to recover at least the basic rent for the period claimed—August 2, 1955, to May 20, 1957. Mr Hadfield submitted that the rent charged by Lewis was in excess of the basic rent and was illegal under the Tenancy Act. He admitted there was no evidence of the basic rent being 10s. His Honour said he was at a loss to find why the Magistrate held the basic rent to be proved. It was impossible to uphold that the transaction was tainted with illegality. The appellant was given judgment for £l9O and costs in the Magistrate's Court and the Supreme Court.