Regis Property Company Ltd v Redman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0427-1 |
| Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0427-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Jenkins and
Lord Justice Hodson
Mr GABRIEL COHEN and Mr JAMES BORDERS (instructed by Mr F.R. Earle) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr NEIL LAWSON. Q.C. and Mr BRIAN GALPIN (instructed fey Messrs Stikeman & Co,) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
I will ask Lord Justice Jenkins to deliver the first Judgment.
The Plaintiffs (now Respondents) are the owners of a block of flats known as Northwood Hall, Lane, Highgate, N.6. By a tenancy agreement dated the 12th February, 1953, the Plaintiffs (therein called "the Landlord") let one of these flats (No. 0/16), which is admittedly a dwellinghouse to which the Rent Acts apply, to the Defendants (now Appellants, and therein called "the tenant") on a monthly tenancy at the yearly rent of £123. 6. 3. payable monthly in advance. Under this tenancy agreement the tenant covenanted to pay the general rates in respect of the flat and also to reimburse to the landlord any increase in the water rates beyond the amount payable on 1st April, 1952, the landlord on its part covenanting to pay the water rate. It also contained the following covenant by the tenant as to repairs: "The Tenant hereby agrees with the Landlord C) To Keep the interior of the flat together with all fixtures and fittings now or hereafter therein or appertaining thereto (including the doors windows sanitary and water apparatus thereof) in good and substantial repair and clean sanitary condition (fair wear and tear and damage by accidental fire excepted), and so to deliver up at the end or sooner determination of the tenancy hereby created"; and the following covenant by the landlord as to the supply of constant hot water and central heating: "The Landlord hereby agrees with the Tenant (C) To use its best endeavours throughout the term to maintain at all times a reasonable and adequate supply of hot water for domestic purposes to the flat through the central installation (if any such installation is installed in the building) and to keep the radiators (if any) in the flat sufficiently and adequately heated through the central heating installation (if any such heating installation is installed in the building). Provided that the Landlord shall not be liable to supply hot water forthe central beating installation (if any) except during the cold season between dates to be determined at the Landlord's discretion and Provided also that the Landlord shall not be liable in damages in the event of any interruption of such services".
By their Particulars of Claim in the action to which this appeal relates, dated 3Oth June, 1955, the Plaintiffs alleged that by the aforesaid tenancy agreement flat No. 0/16 was let to the Defendants at a rent then standing at £140. 14. 4., by virtue of certain increases permitted by the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954: and that the Defendants had failed to pay £19. 7. 6. of the said rent which had been due to the Plaintiffs for more than the period of 14 days specified in the proviso for re-entry; and they claimed possession of the flat, £1. 7. 6. arrears of rent, and a declaration that the rent recoverable from the Defendants in respect of the flat was £140. 14. 4.
By their Defence the Defendants alleged, and it is not in dispute, that the standard rent of the premises was £115 per annum including water and (general rates. They alleged further that the general rates at the date of the fixing of the standard rent were at least £21. 17. 4; that the present rent included water rates, which had Increased by not core than 19s. 2d. per annum, but did not include general rates. They therefore contended that the recoverable rent was no more than £94. 1. 10, and that, so far from rent being in arrear, the Defendants had made over-payments amounting to £188. 3. 8; and they accordingly counter claimed for the amount of the alleged over-payment.
The Pleadings do not disclose the true issues. The Plaintiffs in fact sought to justify the difference between the standard rent of £115 and the allegedly recoverable rent of £140. 14. 4. on grounds which did not involve reliance on any increases permitted by the Housing Repairs and, Rents Act,1954, though there had apparently been at one stage an agreement that the increases so permitted should be taken as £17. 9. 9. which, with a figure for the contractual rent of £123. 4. 7., as compared with the rent in fact reserved by the tenancy agreement of £123. 6. 3., would in fact give a recoverable rent of £140. 14. 4. as alleged in the Points of Claim. It was agreed in the course of the hearing before us that, notwithstanding any agreement there may have been as to the amount of the increases permitted under the 1954 Act, that question should be considered as wholly at large so as to protect the tenants from a duplication of any increase which might be justifiable both under the 1954 Act and on one of the other grounds on which the Plaintiffs rely. The cuesion of increases under the 1954 Act can therefore be regarded as having passed from the case so far as the present appeal is concerned.
True issues between the parties, as they emerged in the course of the hearing, may conveniently be dealt with under the three headings of (1) Rates, (2) Repairs, and (3) Constant Hot water and Central Heating.
(1) Rates. It appears that North wood Hall was built in 1936 soon after the current valuation list had been settled. This flat was added to the list by amendment at the rateable value of £41 and stood in the list at this figure on the 8th April, 1936 (the date of the original letting by which the standard rent was fixed) and thereafter down to March 1941, when by an amendment of the list operating retrospectively as from 1st April, 1935, its rateable value was reduced to £34, the retrospective operation of the amendment being attributable to Section 37() of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. The liability for general rates was transferred to the tenant by notice dated the 20th February, 1947. In 1946 there was an increase of general rates, in respect of which a notice of increase was served on the 20th April in that year.
Section 2(1)(b) of the 1920 Act is in these terms? "The amount by which the increased rent of a dwellinghouse to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, lie as follows, that is to say (b) An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included" — then, as originally framed, the sub-section had "the 3rd August, 1914", for which there has been substituted by amendment "the 1st September, 1939" — "or in the case of a dwellinghouse for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the said date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable thereafter". Sub-section (3) of the same section contains this provisos "Provided that, for the purposes of this section, the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if a corresponding reduction is made in the rent".
On these statutory provisions, in their application to the facts above summarised, Mr Cohen for the Appellants made these submissions: (i) He contended that when the liability for general rates was transferred to the tenant by the notice of 20th February, 1947, the "corresponding reduction" in the rent referred to in the proviso to Section 2(3) should have been calculated on the rateable value of £41 at which the flat was originally included in the valuation list and not (as was in fact done) on the amended rateable value of £34. This I think is clearly wrong. I entirely agree with the learned Judge that the "corresponding reduction" to be made in the rent is the amount of the rates payable at the date of the transfer. See woodside House (Wimbledon) Ltd. v. Hutchinson, 1950 1 King's Bench, 182. The relevant date here is the 20th February, 1947, and the proper reduction isthe amount of the rates payable at that date calculated on the amended rateable value of £34 at which the flat stood at that date in the valuation list. (ii) Mr Cohen contended further that the increase in rates in respect of which the Notice of Increase of the 20th April, 1946, was served was calculated on a wrong basis because it was taken as being the difference between the increased rates and the rates payable in respect of the relevant earlier period on the amended rateable value of £34 end not, as in his submission it should have been, on the difference between the increased rates and the rates payable in respect of the relevant earlier period on the rateable value of £41 at which the flat was originally included in the valuation list.
The argument turns on the meaning in Section 2(i)(b) of "the corresponding amount paid in respect of the period which included the 1st September, 1939". Mr Cohen submitted that the amount so paid consisted of the rates calculated on the original rateable value of £41 and not on the amended rateable value of £34. I think this argument breaks down on the facts, as appears from the following passage in the Judgment of the learned Judges "Mr Borders of Counsel for the Defendants submits that it is established in evidence that the landlords in fact paid the rates for that period on the basis of a rateable value of £41, but 1 am not satisfied that this is so. The oral evidence on this point was given by Mr Buttle, the Manager of the Plaintiff Company's Managing Agents and by Mr ay, an officer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial