RIGHT TO RENEWAL OF LEASE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 498, 4 May 1909, Page 2

RIGHT TO RENEWAL OF LEASE.

A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL. .'. ■ ' Judgment* was also given with respect to = the case of Crespin Parker (appellant) versos , Reginald Palmer Grovillo and, Mary Jolly ° Edwards (respondents), i [ a *. This was' an appehl from a judgment dolivered by Mr. Justice Chapmani , Tho facts

wore tba-t appellant leased from respondents a farm at Silveretrcam containing 231 acres. Thoro was a covenant' in tho leaso (which was .for nine years, from March, 1899), that i appellant might secure a renewal of tlio term provided that he had given six months' no-, tico of his intention, and should hnyo performed his covenants. , It was provided in the lease that appellant ; should keep the premises and fences in good repair, insure the buildings, grub up and eradicate all sweet briar and tauhinu on tho farm, and not allow gorso to grow fheroon. On the ground that appellant had not duly performed tho covenants, respondents, who/held tho land as trustees, refused to grant a renowal of tho lease. Appellant then brought an action against respondents for specific performance. Mr. Justico Chapman held that, upon tho evidence, , appellant had substantially broken the covenant to eradicate tho tauninu, and refused to grant specific performance. From this decision an appeal was now. brought. ■.'.'. The Court held that the respondents had failed Ao comply with tho conditions imposed by the-first Suli-sccfrion of Section 94 of tha Property Law Act, 1908. Respondents wore', not therefore in a position to sot up that appellant had forfeited -his■rights , under his agreement for a lease. With ccrfcaui exceptions which did apply, specific, perform.'. anco could not bo enforced unless the remedy was mutual. Under the law as it at present, stood, tilie appellant was therefore entitled to a decree for specific performance of , the agreement for a renewed lease; hut ho was only so entitled upon making compensation to the respondents for any damages sustained , by them by reason of his breaches of covenant. It would be necessary to provide in the decree for an inquiry as to what damages tho respondents had sustained. .Tho case , would be, remitted to tho Court below to frame tlie decree. Costs in the Court below would be left to bo dealt with by that Court.: As the appeal had been allowed upon.) grounds which 'Were not. raised .' or •'< oren hinted at in tho Court below, it would not bo proper to allow any costs of the apneal. ■Leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted on the .usual terms. •■ / Mr. .K.C.(mth ihim Mt. Jotav ston), appeared for appellant, and Mr. D. M. .Findlay and Mr. J. L. , Stout for respond', ents. \ ..';. ; ...V.. ■:-,', ' ■.'. '.. . ■ ■:'■■