Strutt v Panter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0126-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 26 January 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0126-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Jenkins and
Lord Justice Morris
Mr. STEPHEN TERRELL (instructed by Messrs, Kingsford Dorman & Co., agents for Messrs. Rawe & Co., Kingston-on-Thames) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr C.W.S. LUBBOCK (instructed by Messrs. McNamara & Co., Chertsey) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
I agree with the learned Judge in having some sympathy with the plaintiff landlord in this case. But he has come here not for sympathy, but, if he can get it, an Order for possession, and that, in my judgment, he cannot get. I agree, in other words, that the present Defendant, Mrs. Panter, is now in occupation by virtue of Section 12 (1) (g) of the 1920 Act, though it appears that the Plaintiff landlord could, by taking the appropriate steps, produce the effect that the rent, which is now 10/11d. a week, would be increased to the higher figure of the full recoverable rent.
The matter turns on the circumstances that in February of 1950, in an action brought by the present Plaintiff (Appellant) against the Respondent's mother and then tenant, Mrs. Beard, for possession of another house, No. 48 Station Road, shertray, the learned Judge, Judge Konstam, made an order for possession of that house upon terms, by way of satisfying Section 3 of the Act of 1933, that the Plaintiff would let — and so far as we can tell those were the vital words — to Mrs. Beard another house. No. 59 Station Road, at a comparable rent, 10/11d. a week.
Now, at the time of that order, Mrs. Beard was, in fact, the statutory tenant, having herself survived the previous tenant and herself taken advantage of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Act of 1920. If, therefore, she (Mrs. Beard) had remained at No. 48 Station Road and died there — and she did die, in fact, on the 17th December, 1951 — the present Defendant, Mrs. Panter, could not have invoked that same Section in order to preserve for herself a right of continued occupation. If, however, the effect of this Order was to create in Mrs. Beard a new contract of tenancy of No. 59 Station Road, Chertsey, then the fact that she(Mrs. Beard) had herself succeeded under Section 12 (1) (g) ceases to have any further relevance, and Mrs. Panter would be entitled, and is now entitled, by virtue of Section 12 to remain in possession of No. 59 Station Road after her mother's death.
It might be said that the intention of the learned Judge, Judge Konstam, was that everything would remain, so to speak, exactly as it was on the 7th February, 1950, with the mere substitution for No. 48 Station Road of No. 59, so that Mrs. Beard's statutory tenancy of No. 48 would, so to speak, be translated to No. 59.
I agree with the learned Judge that that is not...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
H.v Holdings Ltd v Mahabirsingh
...tenant retains possession of the subject matter of the tenancy after the contract has been determined”: per Raymond Evershed, M.R., in Strutt v. Pantor [1953] 1 All E.R. 445 at 446. What continues to subsist are the terms and conditions of the original contract but only in so far as they ar......
-
Cyprus v Gopaul
...retains possession of the subject matter of the tenancy after the contract has been determined’: per Sir Raymond Evershed M.R., in Strutt v Pantor 1953 1 All E.R. 445, at p. 446. What continues to subsist are the terms and conditions of the original contract but only in so far as they are c......
-
De Mayney v Ali
...tenant retains possession of the subject matter of the tenancy after the contract has been determined” per Sir Raymond Evershed M.R., in Strutt v Pantor [1953] 1 All E.R. 445, at p. 446. What continues to subsist are the terms and conditions of the original contract but only in so far as th......
-
Arman v H.v Holdings Ltd
...TENANT RETAINS POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TENANCY AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN DETERMINED”: per Raymond Evershed MR., in Strutt v. Pantor [1953] 1 All ER 445 at 446. What continues to subsist are the terms and conditions of the original contract but only in so far as they are co......
-
PAN ASIAN AFRICAN CO. LTD. V. NICON
...(1924) N.N. 189. 20 37. Lee v. K. Carter Ltd. (1949) 1 K.B. 85. 38.Dawodu v. ljale (1946) 12 W A.C.A. 12 at 13. 39.Strutt v. Panther (1953) 1 Q.B. 397. 40.Hemmings And Wife v. Stoke Poges Gulf Club (1920) 1 K.B. 720. 41.Jones v. Chapman (1847) 2 Ex 803 at 821. 25 42.Lows v. Telford (876) 1 ......