HOTEL RENTALS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 247, 6 July 1918, Page 9

HOTEL RENTALS

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT EFFECT OF SIX O'CLOCK CLOSING . In the Supreme Court yesterday morning His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer delivered a judgment of importauco and of interest to many people. It was a ease under tho Declaratory Judgments Act concerning a memorandum ot' lease dated February 11, 1913. from Minnie Eedwood to Hettio Cumins, of the licensed premises blown as tho Tua Marina Hotel near Blenheim, and the transfer of the said memorandum of lease from Hettin Cuming to Hans Charles Lawson, and of a notice of renewal, dated November 10. 1017, from Hans Charles Lawson to Mineio Eedwood. Proceedings wero initialed under tho , ? °. f _ Ll| Wor Eestrietion Act, 1917. the plaintiff being Minnio Redwood, wife of A. P. Eedwood, of Petone, settler, and tho defendant Hans Charles Lawson, of Tua Marina, near Blenheim, hotolkoepor. Mr. B. P. Bunny appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. R. ITCallimi- for the defendant _ His Honour said in (ho courso of his judgment that tho caso was one of an originating summons issued for (be purpose of determining whether tho defendant can claim tho benefit .cf the provisions for reduction of rent Mid for adjustment of other charges i onferred upon leasees under Section •! of tho Sale of Liquor Restriction Act: The plaintiff, in consideration of a premium of ,£IOO, leased to Cuming the Tua Marina Hotol for a term of five years, at a yearly rental of 4)150, payablo in monthly instalments of ,£l3. In the lease was contained an option for renewal on the following terms:—"Tho lessor will, on tho written request made three calendar months bofore the expiration of the term hereby created, and if there shall l'.ot at tho time of 6uch request he any existing breach ox non-obscrvanco of any of the covenants on tho part of the lessee herein contained or implied, at the expense of the lessee, grant her a lease of the demised promises for a further tarm of five years from the expiration of the. said term at the same rent, and containing the liko covenants and provisions as are herein contained,, with tho exception of the proBent covenant for renewal, the lessee, on tho execution of such renewal lease, to execute a. counterpart thereof."' Ou August 1, 1913, the leaso was duly transferred to defendant, who is still in possession of. the promises. On Nowmber 10. 1917, -defendant give notico lo plaintiff of his desire to renew the lease, and on or about.February 18, 1918, defendant served plaintiff with a notice under Section 21 of tho Salo of ljiquor Eestriction Act. 1917, requiring her to reduce the rent to ,£52 per annum, or to accept a surrender of the lease. Tho Act, His Honour went on to : say, came into force on October 'i'i, '1917, and as from December 1, 1917, during the continuance of the present war and six months thereafter, curtails the. .Jiours during which licensed premises may ho open for the sale of liquor. Sections i, 5, and 6, of tho Act make provision for the reduction of rent, and for tho adJ'ustmcnt of other charges between • tho essor and lessee of licensed premises by reason of the reduction of the hours for the salo of liquor. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted two [.expositions:— (1) That the Act had no application except to leases or agreements for leases in existence at the dato of coming into operation of the Act. namely, October 27, •1917. . (2) That tho option for renewal having been exercised after the Act camo into force, tho defendant was in (he same position as if ho .had taken a new lease at tho time of the exercise of his option, and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act. . "As to the first contention," His Honour said, "I think this is not sustain- ' able. The words of tho Act are 'any lessee of licensed premises (but in the case of a lessee who is licensee of the licensed premises, subject to his having complied with the provisions of Section 5) may at any time.(before March 1, 1918, by notico in writing served on his lessor require tho lessor to reduce the. rent/ etc. • The words 'any lessee of licensed premises' are 'perfectly gen- 3 eral and in terms apply to any lesseo v ■who gives notice under the section before March 1, 1918, and .would thereforo t include a person who took a lease be- ( tweeu the dato of tho Act coming info j forco and March 1, 1918. It may well { bo that the Legislature had in :oal:<;m-. ~ plation when passing the Act only then ' e existing lessees, but the rule of cm- f ntruction is clear that when tho lan- t guago of a statute is plain and unani e biguous, it must bo interpreted in ' its T ordinary sense, even though it lead to r absurdity or injustice. The languago J, of the section in question is clear and „ unambiguous.. It applies to any lessee | who gives the necessary notico before s March 1; 1918, and cannot, without do- fl ing violence to its terms, be restricted to c lessees under leases existing at the time ~ of tho Act coming into force. Nor, in fact, would such interpretation lend to absurdity or injustice, for if tho lessor does not choose to reduce the .rent or 'I 'accept a surrender of the lease, then the question shall bo referred to r.rbi- T tration as to what reduction (if any) pliall be made in the rent payable by jj the lessee in respect to tho licensed pre- )•'■■-. ■■■ nn the ground that the rent as J feed by the lease is inequitable having regard to the foregoing provisions of tho

Act for the reduction of tho hours dur ing which licensed premise may bo kep open. Moreover, the. arbitrators undei tiio Act, in considering tho question iu to whether tho rent shall bo reduced shrill lmve regard to all tho circum stances of the case. It is dilli cult, therefore, to see that 1 would bo other than futili for a lessee, who, after tho coming iiive tho operation of the Act (.knowledge o: which must necessarily bo iuipuled t( him), took a now lease of licensed pre mised to seek to obtain any aelvantagi under Section of the Act. 1 can se< ' no justification for departing from th< J plain words of the Act for tho purpose ol J excluding from the benchts of the Act ; 'j class of persons who—although comiiif within such ;vords—it may bo presumee: " wore not intended by the Legislature • to bo brought within tho scopo of the n Act when by so doing I 6hould also ex 1 cludo a class of persons who come withf in such words and who, it may well be • presumed, aro intended by tho Legisla - turo to be brought within the scope ol the Act." 3 With respect to tho second contention ; His Honour said that the defendant was in a much stronger position than e ' desseo who took a now leaso after the i 'Act earno into forco becauso ho had bj • virtuo of his option of a renewal an in 3 terest in the demised premises. It hae. > beeu admitted by counsel i'or plaintill and was obvious, that if the second contention wero sound great injustice mighl result to a lessee who had n. right ol renewal inasmuch as such a lessee mn,\ have- paid a larger premium for the leaso and right of renewal. It was diflicult to see why such it lessee should bt placed in the dilemma of either accept ing the renewal without the right to seel; a reduction of rent as provided by the Act for the restriction on business thereby imposed or of refraining from exercising his option and thereby failing k obtain the full benefit of the premium paid or tho expenditure incurred by him. After quoting an English case concerning tho contemplation of tho framers of ar Act of Parliament, His Honour concluded: "I therefore answer the questions raised by tho summons as follows "1. On the notico of renowal being given there was thereby created a lease or agreement for a lease within the meauing of tho Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917. "2. The defendant as lessee is entitled to tho benefit of the provisions to reduction of rent and adjustment oT othei charges between tho lessor and tho lessee under and by virtuo of Section 4 of the 6aid Act." The defendant, having succeeded, waf awarded costs, and the amount was fixee at £7 7s.