The plaintiff and defendant occupied houses adjoining each other as tenants under leases both of which were granted by the same lessor on the same day, viz the 18th of December, 1788, and both expiring at the same time. The defendant by building on his own premises obstructed a window in the house of the plaintiff though the latter had had an uninterrupted enjoyment of light and air for more than twenty years :
Held:The circumstance of the two houses being held under the same landlord, and for the same term, did not prevent the one tenant from acquiring an indefeasible right to light as against the other.
Citations:
[1861] EngR 30, (1861-1862) 11 CB NS 449, (1861) 142 ER 871
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd and Another v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd ChD 13-Jun-2012
The claimants asserted a right of light either by prescription or under lost modern grant. The defendants argued that alterations in the windows arrangements meant that any prescription period was restarted.
Held: ‘the Defendant is not correct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.283790