M'Farlane v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1900 |
| Date | 24 May 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 179. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Young, Lord Trayner, Lord Moncreiff.
LeaseTerminationTacit RelocationTenant continuing in possession after intimation by landlord of increased rentContractImplied Consent.
The tenant of a shop for the year ending Whitsunday 1899, more than forty days before that term, received a letter from the landlord's agent intimating that the rent for the coming year was to be 110 instead of the former rent of 80. The tenant's agent replied that the tenant would not agree to these terms. The landlord's agent replied that his former letter contained the conditions upon which the tenant would occupy the shop for the coming year. Neither the tenant nor his agent took any notice of this letter, and the tenant continued to occupy the shop. In an action by the landlord against the tenant for payment of 55 as the half year's rent due at Martinmas 1899, the tenant tendered 40, pleading that he had occupied on the old rent by tacit relocation.
Heldthat the tenant must be held to have consented to the new rent, and that tacit relocation was excluded.
Alexander Burgess Mitchell was tenant of the public-house, 420 and 422 St George's Road, Glasgow, belonging to Misses Margaret and Agnes M'Farlane, for the year ending Whitsunday 1899, at the rent of 80.
On 30th March 1899 Misses M'Farlane's agents wrote to Mr Mitchell: As you have failed to arrange terms with us as to the tenancy of the shop, 420 and 422 St George's Road, held by you as tenant under oar clients, the Misses M'Farlane, as proprietors, we have now been instructed to intimate to you that your rent for the coming year from Whitsunday 1899 to Whitsunday 1900 will be 110 sterling, and that the shop will be occupied by you on the following conditions, viz.Then followed certain conditions as to the conduct of the business. Failing your compliance with these conditions, our clients will have power to petition the Sheriff to have you ejected from the premises on seven days' notice to you of their intention so to do.
Mr Mitchell's agent replied on 4th April:Mr A. B. Mitchell has handed me your letter to him of the 30th ult. The holiday has prevented its being replied to sooner. Mr Mitchell cannot agree to the terms of your letter. The writer then went on to request that the draft lease should be sent to him for revisal.
Misses M'Farlane's agents replied next day:We have your letter of yesterday. Our letter of 30th ult. contains the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerr v Bryde
...to increase rent was sufficient to operate as a notice to prevent tacit relocation and he cited some cases of which Macfarlane v. Mitchell, 2 F. 901, may be taken as typical. I agree with Lord Mackenzie, who said that no such case could be here raised. Those were all cases where on the fact......
-
Caledonian Railway Company v Stein & Company
...K. B. 741, [1904] 1 K. B. 669. 2 9 R. & C. T. C. 90. 3 [1908] 2 K. B. 356, at p. 362. 1 [1908] 2 K. B. 356. 2 [1909] A. C. 13. 3 3 F. 677. 1 2 F. 901. 2 1916 S. C. ...
-
Kerr v Bryde
...to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, (2nd ed.) p. 35. 1 5 and 6 Geo. V. cap. 97. 1 [1922] 1 K. B. 656. 1 2 F. 901. ...
-
Reclaiming Motion By Rockford Trilogy Ltd Against Ncr Ltd
...the Laws of Scotland, Volume 13, para 450; Smith v Grayton Estates 1960 SC 349 (per Lord President (Clyde) at 354); McFarlane v Mitchell (1900) 2 F 901 at 904.) [7] Although service of a notice to quit is the classic means of showing that there has not been silence, informal notice that the......