For a landlord to demand and sue for rent, when he knew of facts entitling him to forfeit the lease, amounted to waiver of forfeiture and prevented him from bringing a later action for ejectment. Referring to Jones v Carter: (Crowder J) ‘Here, there has been not merely a demand for rent, but an action brought to enforce it. That seems to me to be an unqualified and conclusive act on the part of the landlord, shewing an intention on his part to treat the lessees as still continuing his tenant … I think the authorities abundantly show that, by such a demand as has been made here, the plaintiff has elected conclusively to treat the defendant as his tenant, and cannot afterwards turn round and make him a trespasser.’
Judges:
Crowder J, Willes J, Byles J
Citations:
[1858] 4 CB (NS) 376
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jones v Carter 1846
The landlord served a declaration in ejectment from the premises.
Held: The service operated as a forfeiture, and a final election to determine the lease, and it was not possible for the landlord later to demand rent. ”After such an act, by . .
Cited by:
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188154