In H.M. Supreme Court laet Priv day, before his Honour Judge Skinner Turner, an action arising out of the tenancy of a house in Yates Road was brought by Messys. J. P. Bisset & Ca. against Mr. J. T. Hammond.
Mr. M. Reader Harris represented plaintiffs, and Mr. H. Lipson Ward appeared for defendant.
Carat aNp DEFENcr.
According to plaintiffs' statement of claim, their property, No. 20 Yates Road, was let to defendant for a term.of three years as from July 1, 1918, on the understanding that no part should be sub-let without plaintiffs' consent, plaintiffs reserving the right to assume immediate possession upon any breach of the agreement. They allege that sub-letting has occurred on various occasions without their consent, on. one occasion to a Japanese, and' again to a Russian tenant. Defendant was written to and informed that, unless the terms of the agreement were observed, plaintiffs would exercise their right of re-entry into possession. The sub letting was not, however, discontinued. Plaintiffs accordingly claimed possession of the premises and' mesne profits from October 1.
In defence, defendant denied all the allegations by plaintiffs, and contended that the claim disclosed no cause of action. Defendant further contended that. at the time of certain payments of rent to them, plaintiffs were aware of the alleged assignments or sub-lettings.
Mr. Reader Harris said the action was one to recover the premises in question, on the ground of a breach of a covenant in the lease, namely, that they should not be assigned or sublet without the consent of plaintiffs. In July last plaintiffs saw an advertisement that the isos were to let. They wrote in immediately to defendant drawing attention to the covenant. However, the premises were let on July to a Russian tenant. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the tenancy and, on writing to defend~ ant. they were asked to allow the matter to stand over until his return from Japan. On August 12, they wrote again. A letter was received stating that on August 1, defendant had called personally an@® paid August rent, which had been accepted. That was perfectly correct. Doubtless it had been done with the intention of pleading a waiver. He (counsel) had to advise his clients accordingly and a letter was written, determining the lease at the end of September. On October 22 there was another very definite sub-letting. Mr. Reader Harris then proceeded to quote authorities in support of his case. In the first case, he submitted, there was a continuing breach of the covenant! and, in any event, there had been
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.