Defendant had written to plaintiffs on September 13, stating that all the rent for August had been paid in full, although his business was only half what it normally was. He asked for a eduction in rental, stating that he was sure the landlords did not expect tenants to bear all the burden of the loss of business, The landlord replied that his expenses had increased, and he could not of-for a reduction in rent. Defendant vacated the premises on September 25.
The judge stated that one month's rent had already been paid into court, and the only point to be decided was whether defendant was liable for the rent for October.
Mr, Reeks contended that defendant was still in occupation of the premises during October, through a sub-tenant, Mr. Kiriloff.
Called by the plaintiffs, Mr. I, W. Rodgers, manager of the rent department of Messrs. Ezra, stated that Mr.
Kiriloff was in occupation prior to November 1, defendant having vacate ed the premises shortly before that date. Plaintiffs did not rent the premises to Mr. Kiriloff.
Mr. Rodger, (in cross-examination)
What is your previous experience of this rental business?—As a tenant.
For the defence, Mr, Rodger stated that defendant never exercised his option, which extended for six months from April last. The des fendant was in the position of a tenant at will after last April. "The bombing of Nanking Road caused M. Joseph Paganon
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.