Where a tenant gave an invalid notice to quit, which accordingly did not have effect to determine the tenancy, upon his holding over after the notice was given the landlord was not entitled to double rent under s. 18. (Bayley J) ‘I think that the Legislature did not intend to punish the tenant for his caprice, but to reimburse the landlord for any injury he might sustain by losing his bargain with a new tenant.’ As to the recital to section 18: ‘It is true that the enacting words are carried beyond the recital, but I think that effect must be given to all the words of the clause, and that the enacting words must be construed with reference to the mischief intended to be remedied. The fair construction of that clause [s 18] appears to be, that it shall only apply in case the tenant shall give the notice contemplated in the preamble… so as to make it binding on the landlord to accept possession of the premises.’ (Holroyd J) ‘Here the landlord claims rent under the statute, and treats the tenant as a tortfeasor…’
Judges:
Bayley J, Holroyd J
Citations:
[1825] 4 B and C 922
Statutes:
Distress for Rent Act 1737 (II Geo 2, c 19) 18
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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.188156
