The landlord served a declaration in ejectment from the premises.
Held: The service operated as a forfeiture, and a final election to determine the lease, and it was not possible for the landlord later to demand rent. ”After such an act, by which the lessor treats the lessee as a trespasser, the lessee would know that he was no longer to consider himself as holding under the lease, and bound to perform the covenants contained in it; and it would be unjust to permit the landlord again to change his mind, and hold the tenant responsible for the breach of duty after that time.’ The act there relied on as determining the landlord’s option was bringing an ejection. How does that apply here ? Here, the landlord, by bringing an action for rent accruing subsequently to the accrual of the forfeiture, and obtaining payment of the rent by means of that action, has clearly made his election to treat the lessee as still being his tenant.’
Judges:
Parke B
Citations:
[1846] 15 MandW 718, [1846] 153 ER 1040
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dendy v Nicholls 1858
For a landlord to demand and sue for rent, when he knew of facts entitling him to forfeit the lease, amounted to waiver of forfeiture and prevented him from bringing a later action for ejectment. Referring to Jones v Carter: (Crowder J) ‘Here, there . .
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.188155
