Barnard v Towers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0730-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 30 July 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0730-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Somervell
Lord Justice Jenkins, and
Lord Justice Hodson
MR. O. P. HARVEY, Q.C., and MR OWEN STABLE (instructed by Mr. Alfred Hurner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. J. T. PLUME (instructed by Messrs Vizard, oldham, Crowder & Cash, agents for Messrs Wartnaby & Co., Market Harborough) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Wrangham in a case arising under the Rent Act. Mr. Barnard, the owner, sought an order for possession of 52, Lubenham Hill. The case proceeded on the basis that in order to succeed he had to show suitable alternative accommodation under section 3 of the Act of 1933 which says: "No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of anydwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made or given unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment and … (b) the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order or judgment takes effect". There are provisions in subsection 2 applicable to housing authorities which do not arise. Subsection 3 says: "Where no such certificate as aforesaid is produced to the court, accommodation shall be deemed to be suitable if it consists either (a) of a dwelling house to which the principal Acts apply; or (b) of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will, in the opinion of the court, afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Acts in the case of a dwelling-house to which those Acts apply, and is, in the opinion of the court, reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work, and either (i) similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwellinghouses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority for persons whose needs as regards extent are, in the opinion of the court, similar to those of the tenant and his family; or (ii) otherwise reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent and character".
It was pointed out that the form of that subsection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chelmsford Cars v Moseley
...included in the bundle of authorities before me. Mr Jefferies has placed particular reliance upon the older decision of this court in Bernard v Towers [1953] 1 WLR 1203, but that, it seems to me, was a quite different case. There the question arose as to whether the offer of sharing a house......