vers ces, LIFPLE Ju, TRADING AS "RU-ENAREEL"
Cine, for Zent_ for September and Getobor (or bretmlaes St 125 Nanking HEH. A, Recks for Messrs. Edward Mr. i, D. Rodger for.E S. Little Jr Before Judge P. Grant Jones (Judgment for platntits with costs)
"The plaintiffs were entitled to a month's notice expiring at the end of October, and judgment must accord-Ingly be entered for them with costs." jsald Judge P. Grant Jones in HM. Supreme Court on Nov, 15 in the case of Edward Ezra & Ca, v. E, S, Little, Jo. trading as "Nu-Enamel." Piaintits were represented by Mr. H. A. Recks fand the defendant by Mr, H. D. Rodger, Giving judgment, Judge P. Grant Jones said:—
This is a claim for rent for the months of September and October last in respect of premises at 123 Nanking Road leased by the plaintiffs to the defendant trading as Nu-Enamel. The latter paid into Court the amount due for September and $30 for costs, and notice thereof was duly sent to the plaintitts, but no notice of ac~ ceptance in full satisfaction of the claim was given by them to the Registrar and the defendant, as provided in Rule 136, and the action accordingly proceeded on the return lay.
By deed dated November 19, 1990, Edward Ezra & Ca, as landlords demised to Nu-Ename! the tenant shop No. 123 in the Central Arcade In Nanking Road from November 1, 1936, for term of six months and six months option, at the rent during the said term of $215 per meusent payable by equal calendar monthly payments in advance; the first to be made on" November J, and in" each case without any deduction. The tenant convenanted inter alia io use and occupy the demised premises as a shop for the sale of enamel paint and not otherwise, and not to assign underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof without the written. consent of the landlords. After the usual \dlords' covenants it was provided end expressly agreed that in case the premises or any part thereof should destroyed or damaged by fire lightening riot tempest or other un~ foreseen cause so as to become unlit for occupation and use and the land= lords did not rebuild or reinstate the same, the rent should cease and the tenant surrender possession: that all questions of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising between the londo lords and the tenant in respect of the Tease should be decided in accordance with English law, and that arrange ments for continuance of the tenancy or otherwise should be made one month prior to the expiration of the Tease. It was sought at the hearing! to invoke the proviso as to destruc tion or damage on behalf of the defendant in reliance on the words "unfit for occupation and use." but this was abandoned on admission that the premises or any part thereof had not in fact been destroyed or damaged. and the landlords had accordingly bad need to rebuild or reinstate them.
The facts are not in dispute. On May 1, the day after the original form of six months had expired, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs that he wished to renew the lease for a further period of six months with an option at the end of October of an Additfonal period of that length, but he rea vested that the mezzanine floor over the back of the shop mizht be extended so as to make it possible to have a permanent staircase put in the back and thus obviate the use of an unsightly ladder. This alteration was not effected and no arrangements were made for the continuance or otherwise of the tenancy. The defendant, however, remained in possession and continued to pay his rent monthly "to the plaintiffs up to August 31. The premises were situated, at the corer of Nanking and Szechuen Roads and from August 16 to the end of that month the: windows were boarded up and foods could not be displayed in them. On September 18 accordingly the de-, fendant suggested to the plaintits that, as business for half the month of Aumust had been negligible and seemed likely to continue to be so in the - then existing conditions, they should allow him September free of rent: in their reply of September 16) the plaintiffs pointed out that their expenses had been greatly increased bby' those conditions and they were consequently unable to meet his suc gestion. Further correspondence. fai to effect a cons™nsus and on September 25 the defendant wrote to, the plaintiffs that he had that day removed his stock and furniture from the premises, in which he had no further interest. and the only point that probably needed to be settled was how much, if any, rent was to be paid for September.' The plaintiffs replied on 20th of that month that under the terms of the lease they
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.