McGrath v Travers

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 January 1948
• Date: 30 January 1948
• Court: High Court

McGrath v. Travers.

PATRICK McGRATH

Plaintiff

and

CHARLES TRAVERS

Defendant.

Landlord and tenant - Tenancy for a year certain - Whether a term of years - Business premises - Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, s. 3, sub-s. 2 (e).

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

By an agreement in writing made on the 19th June, 1946, between the plaintiff of the one part and the defendant of the other part, it was agreed that "The landlord shall let and the tenant shall take a letting for one year from the 19th June, 1946, at the weekly rent of 7s. 6d.," certain premises situate in the City of Dublin. The premises consisted solely of a lock-up shop, and under the terms of the agreement were to be used only as a tobacconist's shop.

In May, 1947, the plaintiff's solicitor informed the defendant that the plaintiff would require possession of the shop on the 19th June, 1947, when the term of the tenancy would expire. On the expiration of the year of the tenancy, the plaintiff demanded possession and was refused by the defendant. The plaintiff did not accept any rent from the defendant subsequent to the expiration of the year of the tenancy.

The plaintiff issued an ejectment civil bill for overholding against the defendant stating therein that the tenancy of the defendant in the said premises had expired on the 19th June, 1947, by reason of the effluxion of time. In his defence, the defendant alleged that the tenancy had not been properly terminated and he also claimed the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946. In the Dublin Circuit Court, Judge Connolly gave a decree for possession and the defendant appealed against this order to the High Court.

Sect. 3, sub-s. 2 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, provides:—"This Act does not apply to . . . (e) business premises let for a term of years or let from year to year under a tenancy, notice to determine which (otherwise than for breach of a term of the tenancy), must be a notice of not less than three months."

The plaintiff let business premises to the defendant for one year certain. At the end of the year he demanded possession which was refused. The plaintiff instituted ejectment proceedings claiming that a tenancy for a year certain was a term of years and was therefore, in respect of business premises, excluded from the control of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946.

Held that the premises were not let "from year to year," but "for a term of years" within the meaning of s. 3, sub-s. 2 (e), of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946. If the notice to determine the tenancy, mentioned in s. 3, sub-s. 2 (e), of the Act, qualifies the reference to a term of years, it can only do so where there is a provision in the letting agreement for a notice to determine the term.

Accordingly, the Act did not apply and the plaintiff was entitled to possession.

Cur. adv. vult.

Dixon J. :—

The agreement in this case provided for a letting "for one year from the 19th day of June, 1946, at the weekly rent of 7s. 6d. payable quarterly in advance." It enabled the landlord to serve a week's notice to quit expiring on a gale day in the event of the tenant being in arrears of rent at the commencement of any quarter or of breach, non-performance or non-observance of any covenant or condition, but contained no other provision for notice to quit nor any provision providing for the position after the end of the year beyond requiring the tenant to yield up the premises on the determination of the tenancy therein created in good order and condition. The ejectment is based on overholding after the end of the year.

The premises were, and are, a lock-up shop, and are admitted to be "business premises"...