Waste was brought against one and waste was assigned in respect of a chamber because he had allowed it to fall down for lack of roofing and also in certain cottages, . . .
Newton . . .As for the chamber we tell you that it was unroofed at the time of the lease and beforehand and for lack of great timbers was weak and rotten at the time of the lease and after the lease we roofed it as soon as we could and it did not collapse for lack of roofing after the lease. As for one cottage, the great timber was so weak and so rotten at the time of the lease that it could not stand and so it collapsed; judgment whether waste is to be adjudged against them. . .
Cottesmore. As for the chamber, it fell down for lack of roofing after the lease, as we are ready etc.; as for the cottages, the great timber was not rotten at the time of the lease as we are ready etc.; . . .
So note from this plea that if trees are felled by the wind they belong to the tenant for life and not the reversioner: but query.
The lease was a lease for life. The case was brought and argued on the basis that the tenant is liable where a building falls down in consequence of his not having kept the roof in repair
Citations:
[1429] [Co. Litt. 53a (e) and Viner 442, no. 17]
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196736