CLAIM FOR BENT

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 116, 19 May 1930, Page 13

CLAIM FOR BENT

JUDGMEM 1 FOR

A successful claim for rent owing was made by Philip Schncideman, merchant, against John Conwelli mercer and hatter,

in the Supreme Court to-day, before his Honour. Mr. Justice Blair. . ■ .. ,

Mr. P. Keesing appeared for': the plaintiff,- and Mr. K. K. Scott for the defendant. ' .. • »

The plaintiff,, in his statement of claim, alleged that on 21st February, 1929, the defendant agreed to take a lease of a'shop in his building at the corner of Manners and Bond streets. He occupied the shop until Bth June, and on 10th June he saw the plaintiff and repudiated the' agreenient. On 9th December, the plaintiff, iv acceptance of the repudiation, entered into possession again. A claim was made for rent in respect of the period from 9th June to 9th December, and damages amounting to £325 for the breach of agreement. ■ ■ ■ •

The defence was that it was agreed between the parties that the ' tenancy should cease, .on Sth June, and that the plaintiff accepted the keys from' the- defendant on 10th June and confirmed the termination of the tenancy. If the plaintiff had any rights under the agreement of 21st February, it was urged that he had waived them by accepting the keys and reentering into possession.

Giving judgment, his Honour said that the case' was an unfortunate one, and he

was vpry sorry for the defendant. He had put his savings into the business, and, perhaps from want of business experience, had taken a lease of the premises for a very long period, with, the result that his limited capital was not sufficient to stand the drain involved in starting out in a new business in a , new street. The onus was upon him to establish affirmatively that a new contact was made between the parties, whereby the old contract was deemed to be rescinded. It was a verbal agreement, and in such a case the Court had to be abundantly satisfied

that- the rescission .was proved. His Hon-, our said he was afraid that the defendant had not discharged the onus upon him. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £155. '