LIABILITY FOR HOTEL REPAIRS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11782, 11 October 1901, Page 6

LIABILITY FOR HOTEL REPAIRS.

AN INTERESTING POINT. [BY TELEGRAPH.PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington', Thursday. A case of much interest, affecting the question of liability for repairs to hotel premises as between lessor and licensee, came before Mr. Justico Edwards in the Supreme Court to-day. In 1876 the Wellington Public Hall Company (Limited) granted the lease of the Club Hotel, which term became vested in Johnston and Co. (Limited). Under the agreement the lessees contracted to maintain the promises "in good and substantial state of repair and condition, damage and destruction by fire only excepted." In 1694- Johnston and Co. again leased the premises, and the lease became vested in Keuben Baker, who, in his agreement, contracted to maintain the premises " in good and tenantable repair, wear and tear and damage by fire alone excepted." In June, 1901, Johnston and Co., at the request of the superior landlords, the Public Hall Company, effected, according to their showing, certain repairs and improvements for themselves and for the Public Hall Company, and for Baker, without prejudice to liability subsequently to be determined between them. In to-day's case Johnston and Co. sought to recover from the Public Hall Company and Baker, or from either of them, the cost of repairs, £304- 10s. The first point was whether the repairs came within the term " wear and tear" as excepted in Baker's lease from the lessees' liability, the second whether (in view of the stipulations made by the Licensing Committee as to the effecting of repairs before renewing licenses) the liability of the lessee as licensee to maintain the license did not also involve maintcunce by him of the premises. After hearing argument His Honor dismissed the Public Hall Company from the proceedings. A number of cases were quoted as to the meaning of "wear and tear," in covenants between landlord and tenant, and whether repairs (renewal of roof and erection of fire escapes) came within " wear and tear." Counsel for Baker contended that as the loss of license would not relieve the plaintiffs from paying rent under their contract with the Public Hall Company, but would relieve the defendant Baker from paying rent to the plaintiffs, as it would determine his lease, the chief interest in effecting repairs fell on the plaintiffs. His Honor reserved his decision.