It was said that the premises had previously been occupied by someone with measles and were therefore not fit for human habitation.
Held: A term of fitness for occupation was implied into a lease of furnished premises at its commencement and meant: ‘that it should be reasonably healthy, and so not dangerous to the life of those inhabiting it.’
Pollock B said that furnished lettings were an exception to the doctrine that rent issues out of the realty and held instead that rent was simply ‘a sum paid for the accommodation afforded by the use of the house’.
Judges:
Pollock B
Citations:
(1877) 2 Ex D 336
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258841