NOTICES TO QUIT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2125, 6 December 1920, Page 8

NOTICES TO QUIT.

TWO SIGNATURES NECESSARY. WHERE TENANCY EXISTS. "Where, at the time of entering into a contract of sale of land, such land is the subject of an existing tenancy, the notice to quit should be given by the vendor and purchaser, jointly," ruled Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in delivering ja reserved judgj'nent atihe Magistrate's Court this morning, in the case of Waliter Ahlfeld v. Charles Healey, a claim for possession of a tenement and £l3 117/0 in respect of rent from July 31 to ! \ November 29. At the hearing of the ease on November 29, Mr C. S'. Thomas ! appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. [Twyneham for the defendant. | The plaintiff entered into a contract with Mr A. Dey for the purchase of his i freehold house property at 52 Holiest on ! Street, Christchurch, for £540, of which i £2OO was paid on the signing of the | contract, and the balance was to be 'paid on September 4, 1920. Mr Dey, lat the time of entering into the contract was the owner in fee, and the property was let to the defendant at a weekly rental. No agreement had been made as to the duration of the tenancy. The contract was made subject to the existing tenancy. On August 5, he plaintiff sent the defendant the following notice to quit: "Having purchased the property, 52 Eolleston Street, occupied by you, and requiring samo for my own. use, I hereby give you a month's notice to quit and deliver up possession of the said property. Hoping you will not be inconvenienced. (Signed) Walter Ahlfeld." This notice bore the footnote: "The above is correct. Please take a month's notice. (Signed) A. Dey." A. Dey, who signed the notice, said the Magistrate was the defendant's former landlord, the owner-in-fee, and the vendor to the plaintiff. The sole question for decision was: Could the plaintiff give notice to quit before he was entitled to possession, and before he had acquired the legal title. It had been decided that a cestui qui trust, who was tenant for life in possession, and with the consent of the trustees had the entire control and management of the estate, had power, as their general agent, to give notices to quit. It was held that, in the case of sale of land, in respect of which a tenancy was in j existence, the notice to quit should be given by both the vendor and the purchaser. The reason for this was obvious. In equity, the vendor was a bare trustee of tho land for the purchaser. The vendor's only interest was in respect of rent accruing before possession was given, and the purchase and other moneys coming to him under the contract. Although the vendor might be entitled to tho rents and profits until the date of possession, where, as here, only a month intervened between the respective dates of sale and of giving, possession, it was for the purchaser I alone to say whether existing tenancies i were or were not to continue. In the present case, the notice to quit was given by the vendor and purchaser, jointly. It was therefore in order. The plaintiff was now owner-in-fee, and could take advantage by suit in his own name of the notice to quit. Defendant was ordered to give up possession on February 2, 1921, and to pay the plaintiff's costs.