Beck v Scholz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0306-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 06 March 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0306-2
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir Raymond Evershed)
Lord Justice Jenkins and
Lord Justice Romer
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
MR. H. H. HARRIS (instructed by Messrs. Howard, Smith & Marston) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. DAVID HUNTER (instructed by Messrs. Arnold & Co) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
This is an appeal from a Judgment of His Honour Judge Bensley Wells whereby he refused to make an Order for possession in respect of rent restricted premises against Mrs. Meta Scholz on the application of a Mr. Alfred Beck, the proprietor of a flat, No. 11 Canfield Gardens in the Borough of Hampstead, London. The case in another illustration of one of the more difficult problems which haveemerged from the Rent Restriction legislation, namely, the problem of the so-called two-home man. The classic instance of that type of case is provided by the decision of this Court in the case of Langford Property Co. Ltd. V. Tureman. In that case the tenant, a Greek gentleman, had a home at Great Missenden, in Buckinghamshire, but he had to work during the week in London. It was proved that during the working week he had "habitually" (I use the word used by Lord Justice Tucker) slept at a flat in London. In that respect, this gentleman obviously ordered his life in the same way as many other people do who have a house in the country but, as they carry on their business or profession in London, who also have a flat or some abode in London. In those cases, as a matter of common sense and fact, it can be fairly and truthfully said that each of them, the country house and the London abode, is the man's "home".
In this case, the facts, so far as they have been elucidated by the learned Judge, seem to me far less in favour of a "two-homes" result than were the facts in the Langford case. The Defendant is Mrs. Scholz. It is apparent from her evidence that Mr. Scholz not only carries on his business at Luton in Redfordshire, but that both of them, Mr. and Mrs. Scholz, not very long ago bought a house at Luton; and that house at any rate is their home. It also appears that the flat at No. 11 Canfield Gardens has been kept on in the sense that Mrs. Scholz's furniture is still there and two persons, a Mr. & Mrs. Scheweizer, live there as Mrs. Scholz's licensees. They are said to be caretakers. They keep the flat in good condition but they pay nothing for the privilege of using it. Then there is evidence of not too clear a character as to actual occupation by Mrs. Scholz or her husband. So far as she was concerned, according to her evidence, during the year immediately preceding the issue of the Summons she had slept in the flat perhaps four or five times. In her case, however, it also appears that she hadunfortunately suffered from arthritis to a serious extent and had been under treatment both abroad and in England. It may be that as the consequence of her illness the tenor of her life had been disturbed — whether and to what extent it has, in fact, been disturbed does not really appear. As regards Mr. Scholz, he said that he has to come to London on business three or four days a week but it is quite plain that, unlike Greek gentleman in the Langford case, those visits to London do not mean that he has to stay in London. I have already said that his business was in Luton. What Mr. Scholz, in answer to a question to him, as the figure of actual occupation by him during the same twelve months before the issue of the Summons was the figure of "two to ten" times — taking the mean, that is six times or once every two months.
Upon those facts the Judge concluded in these terms. "The evidence left me in no doubt that though the Defendant and her husband made little use of the flat during the past twelve months, they were anxious to retain it as a pied-a-terre". Mr. Hunter has very justly pointed out that the phrase "pied-a-terre" is in itself ambiguous. It is sometimes used to mean simply a convenient resort. In another context a man may refer to his home as a pied-a-terre, particularly if it is of small dimensions. But whatever it does mean in this context, or may mean in other contexts, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brake and Others v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd
...than one residence or home. But in the case of what has traditionally been called a “two-homes” man, the courts have been cautious. 88 In Beck v Scholz [1953] 1 QB 570 a tenancy of a flat in London had been originally granted to Ms Muller. On her marriage to Mr Scholz they bought a house i......
-
Hampstead way Investments Ltd v Lewis-Weare
...and degree whether he occupies the latter dwelling-house as his second home. Langford Property Company Ltd. v. Tureman [1949] 1 K.B. 29; Beck v. Scholz [1953] 1 Q.B. 570. That principle has been followed and applied in cases since 1968: see Roland House Gardens Ltd. v. Cravitz (1975) 29 P......
-
Herbert v Byrne
...a tenant who is in personal occupation of the house as hia home; see ( Skinner v. Geary 1931 volume 2 King's Bench Division, page 546; Beck v. Scholz, 1953 volume 1 Queen's Bench Division, page 520); and he may still be in occupation of it when he lives in part and sub-lets part; see ( Berk......
-
R (on the application of CN) v Lewisham London Borough Council; ; R (on the application of ZH) v Newham London Borough Council (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, interested party)
...principal home could occupy a dwelling-house as a residence, provided it was a genuine home, and not merely a resort of convenience – see Beck v Scholz [1953] 1 QB 109 Residence only became a statutory requirement of a statutory tenancy in section 3 of the Rent Act 1968, subsection (2) of ......