Flood v Smith

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1946
• Date: 22 March 1946
• Court: High Court

Flood v. Smith.

MICHAEL FLOOD

Plaintiff

and

HARRY SMITH

Defendant.

Landlord and tenant - Rent Restriction Act, 1946 - Action for recovery of possession - Dwellinghouse let for temporary convenience of landlord - Reason for letting not stated in tenancy agreement or made known to tenant - Whether landlord's right to recover possession restricted - Rent Restriction Act, 1946 (No. 4 of 1946), s. 45.

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

By an agreement in writing, dated the 13th day of January, 1943, the plaintiff let to the defendant the dwellinghouse known as No. 61 Priory Road, Harold's Cross, Dublin, from the 1st day of February, 1943, as a monthly tenant subject to the monthly rent of £6 10s. This agreement contained a provision that the premises should be used solely as a dwellinghouse and other usual provisions: it contained no reference to the letting having been made for the temporary convenience of either party. Although the agreement was for a monthly tenancy, the tenant was assured at the time by the plaintiff's solicitor that he would be left in possession of the premises for at least a year. The tenant was not informed of the special circumstances actuating the landlord in making the letting. The further material facts relating to the letting appear in the judgment.

The plaintiff, having returned to Éire éire in August, 1944, sought to regain possession of his house, and ultimately served a month's notice to quit on the defendant, expiring on the 1st day of October, 1945, and, the defendant not having given up possession, he issued a civil bill for overholding, claiming possession of the premises.

Judge Shannon, in the Dublin Circuit Court, awarded the plaintiff a decree for possession, and the defendant appealed to the High Court.

Evidence was given by both parties as to "greater hardship" under s. 37, sub-s. 1 (e), of the Rent Restriction Act, 1946, a question which proved to be immaterial. This Act came into operation on the 10th March, 1946, a few days before the hearing of the appeal.

Sect. 45 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1946, provides that the sections of that Act restricting a landlord's right to recover possession of controlled premises "shall not apply to premises let . . . bona fide for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity of the landlord or the tenant."

The plaintiff, having been dismissed from his employment in Dublin in 1942 with a prospect of reinstatement after the war, took temporary work in England and let his Dublin residence to the defendant on a monthly tenancy. The tenancy agreement did not refer to the reason or temporary nature of the letting, nor were these matters brought to the notice of the tenant. The plaintiff, having resumed residence in Dublin in 1944, sought possession of the premises, which at the date of the hearing were "controlled premises" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1946.

Held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession, the omission from the said Act of any requirement that the motive for such a letting should be recorded being presumably deliberate, and the evidence establishing that this letting came within the provisions of s. 45 of the Act.

Gavan Duffy J. :—

This appeal, which has been ably argued on both sides, turns on s. 45 of the new Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, whereby a house let bona fide for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity of landlord or tenant is excepted from the restrictions...