(Note) With regard to an action for waste: ‘But this action is now very seldom brought, and has given way to a much more expeditious and easy remedy by an action on the case in the nature of waste. The plaintiff derives the same benefit from it, as from an action of waste in the tenuit, where the term is expired, and he has got possession of his estate, and consequently can only recover damages for the waste; and though the plaintiff cannot in an action on the case recover the place wasted, where the tenant is still in possession, as he may do in an action of waste in the tenet, yet this latter action was found by experience to be so imperfect and defective a mode of recovering seisin of the place wasted, that the plaintiff obtained little or no advantage from it; and therefore where the demise was by deed, care was taken to give the lessor a power of re-entry, in case the lessee committed any waste or destruction; and an action on the case was then found to be much better adapted for the recovery of mere damages than an action of waste in the tenuit. It has also this further advantage over an action of waste, that it may be brought by him in the reversion or remainder for life or years as well as in fee, or in tail; and the plaintiff is entitled to costs in this action, which he cannot have in an action of waste . . . . But now it has become the usual action as well for permissive as voluntary waste.’
Citations:
(1670) 2 Wms Saund 252
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.196726