Wilson v Lord Finch Hatton; CExC 1877

References: (1877) 2 Ex D 336
Coram: Pollock B
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’.
This case cites:

  • Applied – Smith -v- Marrable, Knt ([1842] EngR 1137, Commonlii, (1842) Car & M 479, (1842) 174 ER 598)
    If premises be let for the purposes of occupation, it is on an implied condition that they should be fit for occupation. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hussain -v- Mehlman CC (Bailii, [1992] 2 EGLR 287, [1992] 32 EG 59, [1992] EW Misc 1)
    (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 . .