M50 Motors v O'Byrne

 
FREE EXCERPT

The Circuit Court

Between
M50 Motors Limited
And
Harry O’Byrne
Abstract:

Landlord and tenant - Property - Whether tenant had established “bona fide” business use - Whether landlord entitled to order for possession - Landlord and Tenant Act, 1980 (No 10).

1

Judgment of His Honour Judge John F. Buckley Delivered the 3rd day of May, 2001.

2

Proceedings were brought by the landlords, M50 Motors, seeking an order for possession of two premises at Castleknock, Co. Dublin from Dr. Harry O’Byrne. One of the premises, Oatlands House, was held by Dr. O’Byrne under the terms of a Tenancy Agreement dated the 21st of July 1988 made between The Knockmaroon Estate Company of the one part and Dr. O’Byrne of the other part which had expired on the 30 March 1989. Dr. O’Byrne held over under the terms of the agreement up to the date of expiry of the Notice to Quit served by the landlords. The other premises, The Mews, Oatlands House, had been the subject of a Tenancy Agreement dated the 4 August 1989 between The Knockmaroon Estate Company of the one part and Joe O’Byrne, a brother of Dr. O’Byrne, of the other part, which would have expired on the 3rd August 1990. Mr. Joe O’Byrne had moved out of these premises in the spring of 1990 and they were subsequently occupied largely by Dr. O’Byrne’ wife Mary O’Byrne for the purposes of carrying on an antiques restoration business.

3

It was argued by Mrs O’Byrne that she had taken over the tenancy by agreement with the then landlords Knockmaroon Estates. The evidence of Mr. Kieran Guinness on behalf of Knockmaroon Estate Company did not support her claim being to the effect that Knockmaroon Estate Company had treated Dr. O’Byrne as having succeeded to his brother’s tenancy. I was not furnished with any other evidence that Mrs O’Byrne was the tenant and on

4

the balance of probabilities I was satisfied that Knockmaroon Estate Company had treated Dr. O’Byrne as the successor to his brother and the Dr, O’Byrne had also held over after the expiry of his brother’s tenancy.

5

Each of the two tenancy agreements contained provisions restricting the use of the premises as a private residence only. Having heard evidence from Dr. O’Byrne, Mr. Guinness and Mr. Sherwood and Mr. Monahan on behalf of M50 Motors Limited I was satisfied that there had been businesses carried on in both premises. I extended the time for...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL