Premises were let furnished with the tenant paying a weekly rent of eight guineas. The tenant complained that the premises were unfit, being infested with bugs, and left. The landlord sued for his rent.
Held: As an exception to the general rule against implied terms for repair in tenancy contracts, there is an implied covenant of fitness for habitation in a letting of a furnished house. Also a contract of tenancy may be repudiated by a breach of such a condition, and it is not to be held against the tenant that he has endured the breach for longer than he needed to.
Lord Abinger CB said: ‘in point of law every house must be taken to be let upon the implied condition that there was nothing about it so noxious as to render it uninhabitable.’ and ‘I entertain no doubt whatever on the subject, and think the defendant was fully justified in leaving these premises as he did: indeed, I only wonder that he remained so long, and gave the landlord so much opportunity of remedying the evil.’
Parke B said that premises were unfit for human habitation: ‘if the demised premises are incumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no person can reasonably be expected to live in them.’ and ‘These authorities appear to me fully to warrant the position, that if the demised premises are incumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no person can reasonably be expected to live in them, the tenant is at liberty to throw them up.’
Judges:
Parke B, Lord Abinger CB
Citations:
(1843) 11 M and W 5, (1843) Car and M 479, (1843) LJ Ex 223, (1843) 7 Jur 70, (1843) ER 693, [1843] EngR 181, (1843) 11 M and W 5, (1843) 152 ER 693
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baker v Holtpzapffel 1811
A tenant was obliged to continue paying rent even though the house he rented was burned down through no fault of the landlord. . .
Cited – Edwards v Etherington 1825
The defendant had been the tenant of a house from year to year. He left without notice, saying that the walls were dilapidated to the point of being unsafe. On a Nisi Prius, these facts were held to be an answer to an action by the landlord for use . .
Cited – Collins v Barrow 1831
The defendant held property under a three-year lease with a covenant to keep the premises in tenantable repair. He abandoned it without notice after nine months. He now defended an action for the subsequent rent, saying that the house had become . .
Cited – Arden v Pullen ExcC 1842
The tenancy contained a repairing covenant but the tenant left the house saying that subsidence had caused it to become flooded.
Held: He remained liable to pay the rent.
Lord Abinger CB said: ‘I am of opinion that, unless there has been . .
See Also – Smith v Marrable, Knt 3-Dec-1842
If premises be let for the purposes of occupation, it is on an implied condition that they should be fit for occupation. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v Mehlman CC 5-Mar-1992
(County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.222033