Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies’ so that the 1915 Act applied.
Held: The premises were ‘let as a separate dwelling’. Bankes LJ: ‘The house was dwelt in by the defendants and let to them for that purpose. It is in the fullest sense a dwelling-house and none the less so because it is also a public-house. [Counsel for the landlord] contended that the Acts do not apply to houses if let for business purposes. I cannot accept that view. No doubt if the word ‘dwelling-house’ is given its ordinary meaning the Act may seem to include cases not contemplated by the Legislature; but a restricted meaning would exclude many cases which were intended to be included. The object of the Legislature was to include all houses which are occupied as dwelling-houses provided they are of the class ascertained by their value as prescribed by the Act, notwithstanding that they are also used by the tenant for other purposes as well as those of a dwelling-house.’
Judges:
Bankes.Scrutton and Atkin LJJ
Citations:
[1919] WN 170
Statutes:
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.242241
