Biles v Caesar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE HODSON,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J1210-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 10 December 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J1210-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Hodson and
Lord Justice Morris
MR L.A. BLUNDELL (instructed by Messrs Reid Sherman & Co., Agents for Messrs Merrington & Carmichael, Aldershot) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Applicant).
MR R.E. MEGARRY, Q.C. and MR M.G. POLSON (instructed by Messrs Poeter, Wells & Coggins, Aldershot) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Respondents).
Two brothers, Francis George Caesar and Percy Joseph Caesar, owned some premises at 47, Union Street, Aldershot. In 1947 they let off a shop on the ground floor, with a workshop behind, to Mr Biles, a jeweller, Mr Biles has been there for many years, holding on a tenancy which was at common law determinable by three months, notice. The premises were, however, business premises coming within the new Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, so the landlords after that Act had togive the tenant six months' notice of termination. They did so. On the 4th October, 1955, the brothere Car gave a notice to Mr Biles to terminate his tenancy to expire on 6th April, 1956, In that notice they gave their rcasono for refusing the tenant a new tenancy. They said: " would oppose an application to the court…for the frant of a new tenancy on the that on the termination of your tenuncy we intend to demolish and reconstruct the whole of the prcci comprised in your holding". Thereupon Mr took then to Courti he made application against the brothers Cacoar for a new tenancy in accordance with the new Act.
Unfortunately, before the case came on for hearing one of the brothers, Percy Jooeph Caesar, died: he died on the 13th February, 1956. He had made a will in which he had appointed his son Cyril John Coesar to be one executor of his will and an accountant, Mr. Waldron, to be the other executor. Those two gentlemen applied to cose into the proceeding as respondents in place of their testator. They eougnt to put in an Answer which followed the exact words of sub-paraaph (f) of section 30, subsection 1, of the Act. But when the case came on for hearing on the 27th March they were required by the Judge to confine their Answer to the very ter of the notice to quit which I have read, namely, that they intended to domolish and reconstruct the wholeM of the premises. The case was srd on that day but the Judge did not give judgment straight away because the two executors had not taken out probates they did not take out probate till the 25th May. Eventually they were joined in the suit as personal representatives. On the 24th July the Judge gave Judgment in favour of the landlords.
The tenant appeals to this Court. He takes two points. The first point he takes is that the landlords did not prove an intention to reconstruct the whole of the premises. The tenant says that, although the landlords intend to pull down a large part of these premises, they do not intend to pulldown the whole of then. There is one flank wall which is not going to be taken down. Another wall is going to be left ing althcugh a window in it is going to be bricked up. some part of the celling of the shop is to be left. This point taken by the tenant is, however, a very technicul one. It is quite clear that, if the landlords had given a notice of opposition in co- ter, they would have been in order. 30, subacction ( says that a landlord is entitled to refure a new tenancy on the ground that "on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the preminer corioed in the holding or a substantia' part of those premises". Although the landlords here do not intend to reconstruct the whole, they certainly intend to reconstruct a substantial part. But Mr blundell says that they cht not to be llc to avail thescelves of the subsection in their notice of opposition and in their Answer they relied on 'the whole' of the prezises; and they ought not to to rely on "a substantial part.
Judment, the tenant's arrument on this point in not correct. It is for the landlords in their of opposition to opecify the particular paragraph – (a),(b), (c), (d), (e}, (f) or (g) of section 30, subsection 1, rely. It is not necessary for them to specify of the substantry portions of a paragraph, so long as they which is the paragraph on which they rely. It seems to me quite plain that the landlords here in their notice and in were relying on ground (f}. Although they did not prove the full extent of their notice – they did not prove that the whele was to be reconstructed – nevertheless they proved a sufricient portion to entitle them to refuse a new lease. It is a settled rule of pleading that if a pleader alleges more than is necesuary, he is entitled to rely on any leaser facts covered by that allegation which are sufficient for the purpose he has is hand. so here, it to me, that as long as thelandlords prove (as they did) that they intend to reconstruct a substantial part of the premises, that is sufficient. The greater allegation includes the less
The second point was this. It was said that the landlords had not proved the necessary intention because probate had not been taken out at the time of the hearing. The surviving brother, Francis George Caesar, went into the witness box and gave evidence of his intention to reconstruct a substantial part of the premises. The executor named in the Will, Mr Cyril John Caesar, the son of the dead man, went into the witness box and confirmed that intention on his part. To my mind that was sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v B, W, S, H and W
...that which the jury was originally empanelled to decide, but it is an ordinary rule of pleading that the greater includes the less, see Biles v Caesar [1957] 1 WLR 156. (By contrast, section 11(5)(b) and (c) made special provision for cases where the matter subsequently determined by the ju......
-
Bolton's (House Furnishers) Ltd v Oppenheim
...law, would I think have decided the case against the landlord had he not had before him the decision of this Court in the case of Biles v. Caesar, to which I will refer. In that case the question was different. There the landlords had given notice "to demolish and reconstruct the whole of t......
-
Re Ong Soon Chuan
...731, Meyappa Chetty v Supramanian Chetty [1916] 1 AC 603, Re Masonic and General Life Assurance Co [1886] 32 Ch D 373, Biles v Caesar [1957] 1 All ER 151[1957] 1 WLR 156 (CA) and Lee Han Tiong v Tay Yok Swee [1997] 1 SLR 289 . 2 The court, on being shown that the plaintiff or applicant who ......
-
Sevenarts Ltd v Busvine
...not, in some cases, state the whole truth but only part of the truth in the matter. 11 Now the leading case for that seems to me to be Biles v. Caesar, reported in 1957 1 Weekly Law Reports at page 156, where Lord Justice Denning said this "It is sufficient for the landlords in their notice......