The lessor granted a lease and covenanted to cause the alterations and improvements then going on under the direction of J.M., and the lessee covenanted to repair the premises and to yield them up in as good plight and condition as they should be in when finished under the direction of J.M. It was pleaded that the defendant tenant had neglected to repair the premises and had suffered and permitted them to be ruinous and yielded them up to the plaintiff so ruinous and in much worse order and condition than when the same were finished under the direction of J.M. At nisi prius, the court (Dallas J) directed a non-suit. An action upon the case could not be maintained for permissive waste. ‘Semble that case will not lie against a lessee for years for permissive waste’.
Held: the non-suit was set aside. The court would not say whether an action lay for permissive waste, ‘I do not say whether permissive waste may or may not lie, but it is impossible that it should be waste, to omit to put the premises into such repair as A.B. had put them into. Waste can only lie for that which would be waste if there were no stipulation respecting it; but if there were no stipulation, it could not be waste to leave the premises in a worse condition than A.B. had put them into. I think that is certainly not waste.’
Judges:
Gibbs CJ
Citations:
(1817) 7 Taunt 392
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196730