The tenant of two rooms, which he took unfurnished at a weekly rent, had the exclusive use of such rooms and a key of the outer door of the house. His landlord had also a key of the outer door, and resided in all the rest of the house, but supplied no attendance or service to the tenant.
Held: Such a tenant occupied the rooms as a lodger. Although, by the 1878 Act, the term ‘dwelling-house’ in the Act of 1867 is provided to mean part of a house separately occupied, yet, in order to be entitled to the borough franchise as the occupier of a dwelling-house, the person must have an occupation in respect of which he can be rated to the relief of the poor and, therefore, he is not entitled to such a dwelling-house franchise by reason of the occupation of part of a house if he occupies such part as a lodger.
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘. . it remains to consider when a man who occupies a rateable tenement is an occupying tenant, and when he occupies or uses it as a lodger only.
There is, probably, no question on which there has been a greater variety of judicial opinion than this . . . I think it wiser and safer to say that the question whether a man is a lodger, or whether he is an occupying tenant, must depend on the circumstances of each case.
‘First of all, take the case of a lodger. It seems to me, as to unfurnished lodgings where the owner of the house does not let the whole of it, but retains a part for his own residence, and resides there, and where he does not let out the passages, staircase and outer door, but gives to the ‘inmates’ . . . merely a right of ingress and egress, and retains to himself the general control, with the right of interfering – I do not mean an actual interference, but a right to interfere, a right to turn out trespassers, and so on; there I consider that such owner is the occupying tenant of the house, and the inmate, whether he has or has not the exclusive use of the room, is a lodger. That is one extreme case.
There will be an immense number of intermediate cases. Does it make any difference that the inmates have latch-keys to the outer door and also keys to the inner door? I think not. I think they are still lodgers notwithstanding. Does it make any difference that the landlord does not reside there personally, but has resident servants, who occupy, on his behalf, part of the house? I think not. I think that the inmates are still lodgers. Does it make any difference that the landlord does or does not repair? I think not; they are still lodgers.’
Sir George Jessel MR and Baggallay, Brett, Cotton and Lindley LJJ
(1881) 8 QBD 195
Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act 1878, Representation of the People Act 1867
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.259698