Bolger v Daly
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1925 |
| Date | 01 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | (1924. No. 3846.) |
| Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
Supreme Court
Landlord and tenant - Whether dwelling-house one to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applied - Determination of "Standard Rent" - Evidence - Onus of proof as to letting of dwelling-house - Claim for increased rent - No notice to quit or notice of increase of rent served - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 17), sects. 1, 3, and12, sub-sects. 1, 2, and 9.
The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 17), seat. 12 (1), provides: "For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—
(a) The expression 'standard rent' means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August, 1914, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the case of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let."
By sub-sect. (2) the Act applies to a house where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed, in Ireland, £78.
A landlord sued his tenant for the rent of a dwelling-house, and the tenant's defence was that portion of the rent claimed was irrecoverable by virtue of the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The tenant proved that the dwelling-house was let to him on 1st November, 1918, at a rent of £50 per annum, the landlord giving the tenant possession on that day, the dwelling-house being then vacant. No evidence of any other letting was given by either landlord or tenant, and there was no evidence as to the rateable value of the house. The rent was subsequently increased, but no notice to quit was served, nor was any notice of increase of rent served by the landlord on the tenant pursuant to the provisions of sect. 3, sub-sect. (2) of the Act. The tenant paid the increased rent for some time. For the tenant it was contended that his evidence as to the letting on 1st November, 1918, was sufficient to show that the dwelling-house was one to which the Act applied, and that, accordingly, the increase of rent was irrecoverable. For the landlord it was contended that as the tenant's defence was that the house was one to which the Act applied, the onus lay on the tenant to prove that defence, and that he had not done so, as the standard rent was the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the 3rd day of August, 1914, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, and the tenant had given no evidence as to any such lettings, and, moreover, that it was only in the case of a house which was first let after the 3rd day of August, 1914, that the rent of a letting made subsequent to that date was the standard rent, and the tenant had not proved that the letting of 1st November, 1918, was the first letting of the house.
Held, reversing Johnston J., that the evidence of the tenant was sufficient to prove that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleary v Stuart and Others
...(9) [1937] I. R. 324. (10) [1929] I. R. 7. (11) [1928] I. R. 351. (12) [1923] A. C. 16. (13) [1926] I. R. 411. (1) [1939] I. R. 74. (2) [1925] 2 I. R. 42. (3) 10 East (4) 3 B. & S. 826. (5) [1900] 2 Q. B. 653. (6) 85 L. T. 650. (1) [1904] 1 K. B. 713. (2) [1932] I. R. 339. (3) [1935] I. R. ......
-
Sisk v Cronin
...1 K. B, 685. (4) 45 T. L. R. 383. (5) Before Kennedy C.J., FitzGibbon and Murnaghan JJ. (6) [1926] I. R. 239. (1) 4 A. C. 182. (2) [1925] 2 I. R. 42. (3) [1926] I. R. (4) [1922] 1 K. B. 1, at p. 8. (5) [1924] 2 K. B. 736. (6) [1925] 2 K. B. 713, at p. 722. (7) 36 T. L. R. 771. (8) [1925] N.......
-
Maude and Others v Murphy and Others
...(2) I. R. 6 C. L. 144, at p. 149. (1) [1911] A. C. 552. (1) Not reported. Decided by the Supreme Court on the 25th November, 1929. (2) [1925] 2 I. R. 42. (1) 7 M. & W. (2) 2 Ad. & E. at p. 967. (3) [1909] 1 I. R. 237, at p. 250. (1) Not reported. Decided by the Supreme Court on the 25th Nov......
-
Leigh v O'Byrne
... ... Held, that the letting to the applicant should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be taken as the first letting of the premises. Bolger v. DalyIR [1925] 2 I. R. 42 applied ... ...