A writ of waste was brought and declaration made that the waste had been committed in a messuage, namely in one hall and assigned the waste in a chamber etc. and in a kitchen and assigned the waste in allowing the kitchen to fall down because he did not put piers under the walls of the kitchen called the ‘grunsel’ etc. Judgment was asked of the count as this could not be waste to allow the ‘grunsels’ of a building to waste, for the tenant, namely the termor or lessee, is not obliged to have this thing repaired any more than the timber of the messuage because if he keep the buildings roofed so that the timber does not waste because of lack of this nor the grunsels of the building nor the timber of the walls the tenant does enough on his part because he is not obliged to repair the timber of the house nor of the ‘grunsels’ which is the basic structure of the building as much as the posts and the timber of the building. But repairs of this sort belong solely, as it seems, to the lessor, the lord, and not to the tenant and thus it seems that this previously mentioned is not waste in the tenant etc. According to some of the court it seemed to the contrary for if the tenant allow the ‘grunsels’ to waste and by his failure to protect or to remove water which flows or runs onto this or earth or dung or other nuisance which lies or rests on it the tenant will be charged with this as much as if he broke the ‘grunsels’ and caused the building to fall down because the tenant is at least obliged to ensure that which is leased to him is in as good a condition as it was when it was leased to him. So in the case here if the plaintiff had declared that he leased this kitchen to him well-roofed and with good ‘grunsels’ and good walls and all in good condition and then the tenant allowed the ‘grunsels’ to waste and rot and so the building fell down then the tenant, as it seems, will be charged with waste as a result of his own folly. Likewise here because by this declaration it will be taken by common understanding that the kitchen was prima facie sufficient and was good throughout, that is, in good repair above and below etc. and so then by his sufferance, he declared further, he suffered the ‘grunsels’ to be wasted and that cannot be taken otherwise than that everything was fine at first and now by his sufferance was otherwise and a tenant will be put by the law at least to repair it because he leased it to him to be left in as good a condition every time and thus to repair and look after it in at least as good a condition as he found it; and otherwise he is chargeable with waste etc.
Littleton. This matter goes to our action in this respect.
Catesby. I was taught that this is an exception to the count and by this the whole count is abatable.
CHOKE, J. If this is or is not adjudged waste, whichever one, that will only affect the action in this respect, for if it is not adjudged waste the plaintiff will not be barred by this except from this part of his claim and the remainder will still stand etc.
And because the better opinion of the court was that the count was good the defendant passed over and pleaded no waste.
Citations:
[1465] [Viner 446 no 9]
Cited by:
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196738
