LESSEE’S OBLIGATIONS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 15 August 1929, Page 4

LESSEE’S OBLIGATIONS.

PROPERTY REPAIR CO A 7 ENA NTS. POSITION AT LAAV. Interesting statements! concerning the law in regard to covenants in respect el fanning leases were included in a reserved judgment given by Air J. H. Salmon. S.Ai.. m the Hawera Court yesterday on a claim preferred by Daniel Jam's Willis and Ha/ilette Ihcmaisine AVillis, of Greutfoud, against Edvard Norman, of Hawera, alleging breaches of covenant in respect, of the lease by Norman for three years ended in June, 1929. of a farm property at Ararata. The total amount diaimed under various headings by plaintiffs was £IBB 10s.

Plaintiffs complained of breaches of covenant to keep fences in repair and to renew decayed portions, in lies poet of which £35 was claimed; to keep gateways and troughs in good order, the claim being for £35; to suppress noxious weeds, lor which £1 was claimed ; to lay down permanent pastures, for which £l6 10s was claimed; and to heap and view! up dwellings in a tenantable condition .and buildings in good repair, on which the claim was for £lOl. In his judgment, Mr Salmon held that the fences had not been matintained to a, proper standard of repair and awarded £2O damages. Concerning the gateways and troughs, he held that damages, if any, would bo small. He doubted whether the covenant coniid be construed to include an obligation to fill in depressions made by animals in gateways and trough approaches. In [ that respect no damages would bo j awarded. Damages claimable under I the heading of failure to suppress nox- | ions weeds were trifling, “hut tills, however,” continued the magistrate, is the only ground of complaint in which the weight of the evidence was against the plaintiffs. ’ He was satisfied that tlie covenant relating to the pastures had not been complied with, the sowing having been faulty and the pastures being, as a result, patchy. Damages of £l2 were awarded under that heading. The argument of counsel concerning the two dwellings and other buildings was received at length by the miaisfis:trade, who concluded by awarding £65 damages: on that score. In dealing with that phase the magistrate quoted authoiities in respect ta the obligation on the part of lessees under eonvemints to keep buildings in repair. He referred to an English ease in which Baron Parke said that if at the time of the commencement of the lease the premises were bid and in bad repair, the lessee was bound to put them in good repair as old premises as the lessee could not keep them in good repair without putting them into that condition. “He might have contracted to keep them in the state in which they were at the commencement of the lease,” continued the English judgment, quoted by Mr Salmon. “This is a intract to keep the premises in repair as old premises, but that cannot justify the keeping of them in bad repair because they happen to be in that state wli-en "tlie defendant took them. The cases also show that the age and class of the premises let, with their general condition as to repair, may be estimated in order to measure the extent of the repairs t.o be done. The magistrate also quoted a New Zealand judgment given in 1920 by the late Mr Justice Edwards, who. said, inter alia: “It seems now to be established law that however ruinous a building may be, if it is demised as a building the tenant must from time to time replace all such parts as fail to serve their purpose or make the structure dangerous. 1 ’ Jn the case being dealt with by Mr Salmon, the plaintiffs, on the expiration of defendant’s lease, had sold the balance of tliqir own lease. “It might be argued,” continued Mr Salmon, “that they had suffered no. actual loss through the breaches of covenants by defendant. The answer to that is that they might, had defendant performed his covenants, have obtained a higher price for the reversion. In any event the authorities show that if tiie nonperformance of the defendant’s covenants had been a matter of precuniary indifference to plaintiffs they would still have 'been entitled to recover on the basis of the cost of putting the premises into that state of repair in which defendant was bound to leave them.” Judgment for a total of £97 in addition to costs and expenses was given in favour of plaintiffs. At the hearing of the claim Mr J. Houston appeared for plaintiffs and Air P. O’Dea for defendants.