A TENANCY CASE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 212, 2 June 1919, Page 3

A TENANCY CASE

RESERVED DECISION

TENANT WINS ON ALL POINTS

In the Supreme Court on Saturday His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards delivered reserved judgment in the case of Kathleen Liddle v. Mary Kolleston. masseuse. Tlie plaintiff purchased and became the _ registered proprietor of certain land situate in Lambton Quay, part of Section 455, together with the building thereon, known as No. 256 Lambton Quay. There were certain tenancies subsisting in respect to the building; the defendant had an arrangement for the lease of certain portions of the building for a term of ten years and five days, commencing January 27, 1917. The lease, it was alleged, was subject to a proviso that in the event oi' the fee _ simplo being disposed of before the expiry of the ten years, the owners (llessrs. Skerrett and Wylie) should be at liberty f to determine the lease on one year's 'notice 111 writing. Such notice was given on February 26, 1917, the tenancy to expire at tho end of twolTe months from March 1, 1017. Tho plaintiff claimed a deciarcit.ion that the tenancy was subjeot to determination, and that plaintiff was entitled to possession thereof. That defendant be ordered to deliver up possession of the said premises and to pay tho plaiftliff JB2 per week additional rent as from March 1, 1918, to date of judgment.

In a lengthy review of tho evidence His Honour said he accepted the evidence of Mr. Longmore (land agent) in preference to that of Mr. Wylie on the essential points. Mr. Hannah's _ evidence he dismissed, as it did not assist cither party. Tho judgment was in favour of the defendant, Mrs Rolleston, on all points. The plaintiff. His Honour held, hod failed to establish tho right, which she claimed, to determine the tenancy by notice. The defendant he held had established affirmatively that the right did not exist. His Honour was glad to find that tho conclusion at which lie had arrived did no injustice to Mr. Ilannah or his daughter (the ' plaintiff), seeing that the contract which Mr. Hannah made on behalf of his daughter to purchase the "property had been ina,de subject to the tenancy which had been mentioned by.Mr. Longmore. His, Honour held that defendant was entitled to judgment both in the original action and on her counter-claim that she was entitled to a leaso. of over ten years without any right on the part of the landlord to determine saints _by notice. His Honour therefore gave judgment for defendant, with casts according to scale, as if a sum of J3115P had been claimed, that beinj the present valug of the increased rent claimed by tho plaintiff, with costs. On the counter-claim lie also awarded the defendant ,£2l costs, with an order for the specific performnnce of the contract as claimed by the defendant. At the hearing Sir John Findlny, K.C., with him Mr. A. W. Blair, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. M. Myers, for the defendant.