Berkeley v Papadoyannis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0520-2 |
| Date | 20 May 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0520-2
In the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Somervell,
Lord Justice Denning,
Lord Justice Jenkins,
Lord Justice Birkett and
Lord Justice Romer.
MR R.E. MEGARRY (instructed by Mr. Clifford Symons) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR H. HEATHCOTE-WILLIAMS, Q.C., and MR CYRIL SALMON (instructed by Messrs Tackley, Fall & Read) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This Judgment I am about to read is the judgment of the Court.
This is an appeal by the Defendant John Papadoyannis froma judgment of His Honour Judge Reld at Marylebone County Court dated the 15th January, 1954, whereby he ordered the Defendant to give up possession to the Plaintiffs of two rooms on the first floor and three rooms (other than the room used by the Defendant as a boxroom) on the third floor of the maisonette consisting of the first, second and third floors of the premises known as No. 256, Randolph Avenue, London, W.9.
The Plaintiffs sued as Executors of a Mrs. Hilda Berkeley who died on the 23rd June, 1953. Mrs Berkeley by an agreement dated the 31st October, 1944, and made between herself of the one part and the Defendant of the other part let to the Defendant the maisonette in question (sometimes referred to as a flat) for three years from October, 1944 at a yearly rent of 160. The agreement included an undertaking by the Defendant "Not to assign or underlet the said flat" (i.e., the maisonette) "without the previous consent of the landlord provided that the tenant shall notwithstanding have power to sub-let or underlet part of the said flat" the proviso being interpolated in ink in the typescript.
The remaining material facts are sufficiently stated in the following extract from the judgment of the learned County Court Judge: "The three floor maisonette in question comprises on the first floor two rooms, on the second floor three rooms and on the third floor four rooms. For these three floors there is one bathroom and one W. C. both situated on a landing between the first and second floors of the house. The Defendant says (and I accept his evidence) that the maisonette was at all times too large for his own occupation but that he took it because he could not at that time get anywhere else, that he insisted throughout the negotiations that he should have power to sublet part of the place and that as the result of his insistence the proviso to clause 5 which I have read was interpolated in ink in the agreement before its execution. When in 1947 the original three year period expired the Defendant held over as a statutorytenant. He and his wife, whom he married in 1945, have at all times made their home there and still live there, but do not occupy; and never have at any time occupied the whole of the maisonette. The parts of the maisonette not in their occupation for the time being have from time to time been sublet. They have always occupied the second floor of the house. For part of the time they have also occupied the first floor. The present position is that they occupy the second floor and a small room on the third floor which they use as a box room. The first floor with two rooms, one equipped as a kitchen the other a larges room, is and has been since September, 1953, let to a Mr Cygan who lives there with his wife. Three rooms on the top floor (one a kitchen) are and have been let for the last two and a half years to a Mr. Harrold who lives there with his wife. Both lettings are furnished; the first floor tenant paying 2 and the top floor tenant 3. 10s. Od a week. Rent in each case includes electricity and each tenant pays for his own gas. The rent payable by the Defendant has from time to time been increased from the original 160 a year and is now 13. 15s. Od a month. Both sets of tenants share in common with the Defendant and his wife the bathroom and W. C. The whole three floors form a self-contained maisonette distinct from another maisonette in the lower part of the house, but inside the maisonette there are no structural divisions shutting off from each other the premises occupied by the Defendant and his respective undertenants".
The Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim alleged that they were entitled to possession of the whole of the maisonette, but their claim was in fact limited to those parts of it in respect of which the order under appeal was made, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herbert v Byrne
...520); and he may still be in occupation of it when he lives in part and sub-lets part; see ( Berkeley v. Papadoyannis 1954 volume 2 Queen's Bench Division, page 149). 12 In order to be in personal occupation of a house it is not necessary that the tenant should be there himself with his fam......
-
Horford Investments Ltd v Lambert
...1 All E.R. 834, H.L.(E.). Barrell v. Fordree [1932] A.C. 676, H.L.(E.). Barton v. Reed [1932] 1 Ch. 362. Berkeley v. Papadoyannis [1954] 2 Q.B. 149; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 23; [1954] 2 All E.R. 409, C.A. Crowhurst v. Maidment [1953] 1 Q.B. 23; [1952] 2 All E.R. 808, C.A. Curl v. Angelo [1948] 2 Al......
-
Esther Ethel Baron (Applicant) Philip Phillips (Respondent)
...the premises were not divided, the order being made without any prejudice to the sub-tenants. 44 That case went one way. The case of Berkeley v. Papadoyannis (1954) 2 Queen's Bench 149, went the other way. Here again I must read the headnote. "The defendant, who was the contractual tenant o......
-
Regaliah Securities Ltd (Applicants v Jack R Ramsden
...the Rent Act in his possession of the whole notwithstanding that parts of the dwelling-house are sublet as separate dwellings: see Berkeley v. Papadoyannis (1954) 2 Queen's Bench 149 and Herbert v. Byrne (1964) 1 Weekly Law Reports 519. Conversely, if two structurally separate and distinct ......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...Street Florida Restaurant [1951] 2 KB 277; R v Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 141; Simpson v Peat [1952] 2 QB 24; Berkeley v Papadoyannis [1954] 2 QB 149; Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379; R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664; R v Hopkins (1957) 41 Cr App R 231; R v Matheson [1958] 1 WLR 474; R v ......