The tenant took premises for a year, occupied them and paid rent for a quarter and then left. The landlord re-let the premises a few weeks later, at a slightly lower rent, and they remained let for some months, but they were empty for the last two months of the original term of a year. The landlord sought to recover the loss of rent under the original lease, including both the amount by which the rent was less under the later lettings, and the whole rent for the later period when the premises were vacant, but she failed.
Held: Putting in another tenant amounted either to accepting a surrender or to evicting the tenant, so as to put an end to the right to claim the rent. Sergeant Vaughan had argued that the lettings were for the tenant’s account. Only Gaselee J referred to that argument: ‘If the plaintiff had given the defendant notice, that, if he would not occupy the apartments himself, she would let them to another tenant, on his account, the case would have been different.’
Best CJ, Park J, Burrough J and Gaselee J
 EngR 894, (1826) 2 Car and P 268, (1826) 172 ER 121, (1826) 11 Moore CP
See Also – Walls v Atcheson 24-Apr-1826
Cited – Reichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.325658