London Hospital Governors v Jacobs (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE SELLERS |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J0228-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 28 February 1957 |
[1957] EWCA Civ J0228-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Jenkins,
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Sellers
Mr GEORGE MERCER (instructed by Messrs Pearce & Sons) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr C.G. ARMSTRONG COWAN (instructed by Messrs Hanbury, Whitting & Ingle) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
: This is an appeal by the tenant, Mrs Rose Jacobs, from an Order made by His Honour Judge Elder Jones at Shoreditch County Court on the. 12th December, 1956, whereby the tenant was ordered to pay to the Plaintiff landlords, The Board of Governors of the London Hospital, the sum of £23. 14. 3d. That sum in fact represented arrears of rent claimed by the Plaintiff landlords in respect of their premises, No. 33 Turner Street, London E.1, of which the Defendant was the tenant.
The history of the matter is a little involved. The tenancy originated with an agreement dated the 8th May, 1931, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's late husband. It was an ordinary weekly tenancy, and there is nothing in it which calls for special mention except that it included an agreement on the part of the tenant to keep the said premises in good and tenantable repair (fair wear and tear excepted) and also to be responsible for and replace all broken glass and missing keys. The arrears of rent claimed were calculated on the footing that the landlords were entitled to an increase of rent under the provisions of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act of 1954. That Act gave landlords a right, hedged about by somewhat complicated restrictions, to claim an increase of rent in respect of repairs done by them to the premises. The premises to which the legislation relates are premises within the protection of the Rent Acts, as No. 33 Turner Street admittedly is. Apart from what I may term procedural matters, the conditions which must be fulfilled in order that the landlord may make good his claim to an increase are set out in Section 23 of the 1954 Act. That section provides: "(1) Where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy or occupied by a statutory tenant, and the landlord is responsible, wholly or in part, for the repair of the dwelling-house, then, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, (a) if and so long as the following conditions (hereinafter referred to as 'the conditions justifying an increase of rent') are fulfilled, that is to say (i) that the dwelling-house is in good repair; and (11) that it is reasonably suitable for occupation having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (h) of subsection (1) of Section nine of this Act; and (b) if in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act the landlord has produced satisfactory evidence that work of repair to the value specified in that Schedule has been carried out on the dwelling-house during the period so specified, the rent recoverable from the tenant shall be increased by virtue of this subsection so as to exceed by the amount hereinafter mentioned the rent which apart from this subsection would be recoverable from the tenant under the terms of the tenancy or statutory tenancy and having regard to the provisions of any enactment. (2) The amount of any increase payable by virtue of the last foregoing subsection (which increase is hereinafter referred to as a 'repairs increase') shall be at the annual rate of twice the statutory repairs deduction for the dwelling-house in respect of which the rent is payable: Provided that where the landlord is responsible in part only for the repair of the dwelling-house, the amount of the repairs increase shall be reduced proportionately".
It will be observed that the first condition is that "the dwelling-house is in good repair". For the meaning of that expression in this Act, one must look at the definition in Section 49, subsection (1). That definition is in these terms: "'good repair', in relation to any premises, means that having regard to the age, character and locality of the premises they are in good repair both as respects structure and as respects decoration". It will be observed further that the second condition is that the house must be "reasonably suitable for occupation having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (h) of subsection (1) of Section nine of this Act". Section 9, subsection (1), of the Act is in these terms: "In determining for any of the purposes of the principal Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters, that is to say: (a) repair; (b) stability; (c) freedom from damp; (d) natural lighting; (e) ventilation; (f) water supply; (g) drainage and sanitary conveniences; and (h) facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water; and the house shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid if and only if it is so far defective in one or nore of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition".
The landlords, having executed certain repairs on the premises, were minded to clais an increase under these statutory provisions. In order that they night do that, it was necessary for then to comply with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. That section provides: "(1) No sum smail be recoverable by way of repairs increase unless the landlord has served on the tenant or a former tenant of the dwelling-house a notice in tne prescribed form of his intention to increase the rent (hereinafter referred to as a 'notice of increase'), accoxpanied by: (a) a declaration in the prescribed form tnat at the data of service of the notice the conditions Justifying an increase of rent were fulfilled; and (b) a declaration in the prescribed form such as is mentioned in tne Second Scnedule to this Act; and no such sum shall be recoverable before, or in respect of any period before, such date as may be specified in the notice. (2) The date specified in a notice of increase shall not be earlier than six clear weeks after the service of the notice". Then I should also refer to subsection (4): "The county court, if satisfied that any error or omission in a notice of increase or a declaration accompanying such a notice is due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the landlord, shall have pover to amend the notice or declaration by correcting any errors or supplying any omissions therein which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice or declaration invalid, and may exercise the said power on such terms and conditions as respects arrearsof rent er otherwise as appear to the court to be Just and reasonable; and a notice or declaration amended by virtus of this subsection shall have effect as a valid notice or declaration served on such date, not earlier than the date on which the original notice was served nor later than the date of , as the court may direct".
Accordingly, on the 23rd May, 1955, the Plaintiff landlords served on the Defendant tenant a notice of increase accompanied by a declaration. It will be observed that two declarations are required by Section 25 (1), but the declaration hare served appears to answer the purposes of both. To put it very shortly, the dhteclaration has to declare that the conditions prescribed by Section 23 of the Act have been fulfilled, and it further has to detail the repairs executed by the landlord on which he relies as justifying his increase. The calculation of the increase by reference to the value of the repairs done is complicated, and I do not think it is necessary to refer to it in detail for the purposes of this case. The notice of increase of rent and the declaration were served on the 23rd May, 1955, as I have said, and the date from which the increase was claimed to take effect was the 4th July of the same year.
The landlords having served the notice and declaration, it was open to the tenant to take certain steps. One alternative was to make, within 28 days after the relevant date – that is the date of the service of the notice and declaration – an application to the County Court (to put it shortly) for the purpose of contesting the question whether repairs had been dons to the value claimed. That particular step is provided for in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Act. I sention it only for the purpose of getting it out of the way, for the Defendant did not in fact make any such application. fhe secosd step of which the tenant, the Defendant, might avail herseif was to obtain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Critchell v Lambeth Borough Council
...in Mrs. Critohell's favour by reason of a decision of this court in another case, not I think reported, called the Board of Governors of the London Hospital v. Jacobs, decided on the 28th February of the present year. 7 Having regard however to the difficulties of the case and out of respec......