The court considered whether a property, let and used as a public house on the ground floor with a flat above, fell within the ambit of the 1915 Act.
Held: Bankes LJ said that the property ‘was a dwelling house, and nonetheless so because it was also a public house’. His reasoning was that: ‘The object of the legislature was to include all houses which were occupied as dwelling houses . . irrespective of whether the premises were also used for some other purpose. They came within the statute, although part of the premises might be used for other purposes.’
Bankes LJ (with whom Scrutton and Atkin LJJ
(1919) 35 TLR 525
Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.249366
