Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT

LEASE OF PREMISES INTERESTING TENANCY CASE A case bearing on the tenancy of a flat in the building known as 256 Lambton Quay caino before His Honour Mr. Justice Kdwards in tho Supreme Court ye.sUTda.y. The parties were Kathleen Liddle, for whom Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. A." \V. iilair, appeared, and tho defendant -was Mary Rolloston, masseuse, represented by ilr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. Myers. In the plaintiff's statement of claim it was stated that plaintiff on February 23, 1!)17, agreed to purchase, and on April 3, 1917. became tho duly registered owner of certain. land situate in Lambton Quay, part of section 485, togather with 1 the 'building thereon known as No. 256 1 Lambton Quay. There were certain tenancies subsisting in respect ,to the building,- that the defendant had an ar'rnngenieijt for the lease of certain portions of the building for a term of ten years and five days, commencing January 27, 1917. The' lease was subject to the following proviso: "In the event of the fee simple of the land on which the building stands being disposed of at any time before the expiration of the said term of ten years thev shall be at liberty to determine tlu said term at the expiration of one year alter notice in writing shall have been Riven to the lessee of such disposnl, such notice to be served by posting the same addressed to the lessee at her lastknown place of abode, or leaving the same addressed to her at the described premises." The notice in terms of the proviso was duly given on February 2p, 1917, the tenancy to expire at the end "of twelve months from March 1,1917. The defendant though requested to do so, had refused to quit, and refused to recognise any' right in the plaintiff to possession of- the premises, notwithstanding tho notice mentioned, and claimed that she was entitled as against the plaintiff to a tenancy Of ten years without any right ot determination. ~ Plaintiff notified defendant that as from March 1, 1918, tho rent for, the said premises would be increased by £2 per week, but defendant refused to pay tho said increased rent or quit the premises, and the plaintiff therefore claimed: (1) A declaration that any tenancy belonging to the defendant in the said premises is subject to determination. (2) That any tenancy in the defendant in the said premises has been duly determined. and that plaintiff is entitled to possession thereof. . (3) That defendant be ordered forthwith to deliver to 'the plaintiff possession of the said premises. (i) That defendant pay to the plaintiff as rent 'or mesne m'ofits the additional sum of £2 por week as from March 1, 1918, down to date of judgment, together with costs. . The defendant denied that the plaintiff Oil February 23, 1917, agreed to purchase, and on April 3 became the registered owner ?of the land and building. tho said parcel of land was purchased from Messrs. Skerrett and Wylie by Robert Hannah for his own account on or about Fc-bruary 23, 1917. Alternatively that Robert Hannah was the agent 01 the plaintiff (who is his daughter) m Connection witn tho eai'd purchase. Prior to the purchase the owners contracted- with the defendant for a lease to tho defendant of'the first floor of the building, together with a showcaso affixed to the outside, of the building on the ground floor, for the term of ten years and five days, at the yearly rental of .£312 ner annum (or .£6 per week), payable bv monthly instalments, but subject to a deduction of <£6 per annum for cleaning, and otherwiso subject to the provisions and conditions of a then subsisting leaso, and the defendant had in pursuance of the said contract entered . into possession, and had ever since -remained in possession at the rent aforesaid. and upon and subject to tho terms -of the said contract. Upon the treaty.for the sale by the owners to Robert Hannah (or alternatively to the plaintiff) the owners supplied to the said Robert Hannah particulars of the several tenancies, and tho said Robert Hannah was expressly informfd that a lease was then being arranged with defendant for tho** middlo fiat of the building and a showcase fronting Lambton Quay for a period Of ten years at a rental of .£6 per week, and : upon the making of the contract of pale the' statement of the said tenancies was confirmed. I Defendant denied that plaintiff was ex- , pressly informed that defendant had an : arrangement for a lease .subject to the terms and conditions set out m a draft ; lease submitted to the defendant by the vendors on January 27, 1917, so far as the proviso set out, nnd states that if plaintiff was informed 1 that defendant's . tenancy was subject to audi a proviso tho j statement was untrue, and she denied , that her tenancy was subject to any such > proviso. ' i The defendant admitted that on or ftbou't January 27, 1917, the said Andrew . Wylie, aoting as solicitor for the von-1; dors and 'also for her, forwarded to de- j ) fondant a draft lease, and that tho proviso aforesaid was contained in the said draft lease, but she stated that the said proviso was so inserted without her knowledge or authority; that her attention was not drawn to it when tho : draft lease was sent to her; slio did not - rend through tho draft when phc receiv- \ ed it: that she never did appvovo of tho , draft or conaent thereto, and that on the , contrary as soon as slio became-avaro , of the said proviso she immediately repudiated it. She denied that due notice in terms of the alleged, proviso was given , to her oil February 26,1917, of determination of her tenancy at the expiration of - twelve months, and slio stated that Ho such notice was authorised Or could lawfully be given, and that her- tenancy had not been determined, and was still sub- J sisting. She denied being unlawfully in possession of the premises, but claimed o that she was entitled to a tenancy of '< ten years and five days without any .*Kht of determination by notice. She 1 denied that she had been notified by the , plaintiff of the increased rent of .£2, and . averred tlvnt plaintiff had 1 no right or power to increase her rent. The defendant counter-claimed, and inked for a declaration that she was entitled to a lease from tho owner for a period of ten voars and fivo days from | January 27, 1917, at per week, subissi; lo the terms and conditions in defendant's prior leases. _ . . ■ . Andrew Wylie, solicitor, in his evj- j dence, gave details of tho defendant s tenancy prior to the sale of the property, nnd to the negotiations for tho extomlrd ; lease. Witness said he prepared tho i draft lease as part-owner of -[ho l'fo- : perty, and explained to defendant tho nature and ecopo of the proviso .as to j the determination of tho tenancy in tho event of the property being sold. Ho was certain he explained the matter to her- . ' ~ . Uvidence was also given by J'- ■ A. Wiren. Robert Hannah, and Miss ileincman, typist to Mr. A. Wylie. Mr. Gray, for the detence, said Uiat the issue turned upon whether the proviso was' agreed upon by tho parties. It was admitted that Mr. Wylie agreed to give and Mrs. Rolleston agreed to t»ko a lrnsp of the wholo first floor for ten years at .£6 per week, or £2 per week inoro than she. was then Pay'S; " some respects tho case wa.s a disagi cc.i ilo one. It was a remarkable thing thai in this case where so many business people were concerned there was not mom precision. The proviso was never agreed to bv Mrs. Kollcston. and evidence would bo called to prove this. He put to llu. Honour that a.jury of twelve, aftei lieaiin" Mr. Hannah's evidence, would, not place the slightest reliance on his rcco - lections of what took place. Mrs. Rolleston had been a tenant of the pi cinise- for several years. She wanted increased accommodation and desired to secure the whole flat, and did secure it. Besides the money spen in 'm'>roveuenh bv Mr. Wylie, Mrs. Rolleslon spent .£l-11) i» tbo P r ? ra,Bcs .s"'l- - for her business, nnd in addition bought out another tenant on the same flom- for .£25. Was if reasonable lo suppo=e that Mrs. Rolleston who had suo cessfullv carried on business there for some vears, and had involved heiself in considerable expenditure, would have consented to the proviso which would render her liable to be turned out ot a vear's notice? The tiling was absurd. She voluntarily threw up a. four years

leiue of about Ihree-quarters of the flat to get possession of tlio whole flat at a higher rental. He then indicated (lie evidenct he would call. After hearing the evidence of A. Longmore. land agent, who sold the property for the owners, the Court adjourned until this morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190313.2.100

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 144, 13 March 1919, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,511

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 144, 13 March 1919, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 144, 13 March 1919, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert