Walsh v Coyne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1958
• Date: 01 January 1958
• Court: High Court

Walsh v. Coyne

AGNES WALSH

Plaintiff

and

PHILIP JOSEPH COYNE

Defendant.

Landlord and tenant - Action for recovery of possession - Premises consisting of dwelling and business part - Premises taken as one unit controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts - Business part taken by itself not so controlled - Tenant carrying on business on premises - All tenant's meals taken there - Tenant occasionally sleeping there - Tenant's wife and children continuously resident elsewhere - Bona fide intention of tenant to bring wife and children to reside on premises - Premises presently continuously occupied by caretaker for tenant - Whether premises "a dwelling" within s. 4 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946 - Whether tenant "in occupation" so as to be protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts - Rent Restrictions Act, 1946(No. 4 of 1946), ss. 3 (2) (f), 4, 37.

The defendant was yearly tenant to the plaintiff of licensed premises, consisting of a public-house and dwelling, in which he carried on business as a publican. The premises, taken as one unit, were controlled by the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, but the business part of the premises would not, if taken by itself, be so controlled. The defendant's wife and children resided elsewhere, and the defendant normally spent the nights with them, arriving at the premises in the morning about 10.30 a.m. and remaining there until about midnight. He took all his meals on the premises and slept there approximately one night a fortnight. His meals were prepared for him and his bed made up by a woman caretaker who was the sole continuous occupant of the premises, and was employed solely to look after the defendant and the dwelling. The defendant, if not ejected, bona fide intended shortly to bring his wife and family to reside on the premises.

Held 1, that the fact that business was carried on on the premises could not of itself by virtue of s. 4 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, deprive them of their character as a dwelling or of the protection afforded by that Act to"dwellings."

2, that the defendant, by virtue of his non-continuous personal occupation and of his continuous occupation by his caretaker, and also by virtue of his actual intention to reside permanently in the dwelling was a tenant in occupation of the premises whose right to retain possession thereof was protected by s. 37 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946.

Foley v. Galvin, [1932] I. R. 339 followed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

The defendant's...