Hall v Haskins

Landlord and tenant — Claim for possession — Separate or shared tenancy — Rent Restrictions Acts This was an appeal from the refusal of Reading County Court Judge to grant possession of rooms on the ground and first floors of 61, Weldale Street, Reading, to the landlord, Walter Leslie Hall, against the tenant, James Haskins. The rooms were let on a weekly tenancy at 8s 3d, and notice to quit was given last August. The contention of the plaintiff was that there was a sharing between him and the defendant of the kitchen, which deprived the defendant of the protection of the Rent Acts. The County Court Judge held that there was a separate letting and that there had been only a temporary sharing of a gas stove for cooking because the stove in the kitchen smoked. Therefore the tenant had the protection of the Rent Acts. Mr Barry Sheen (instructed by Messrs Stevens & Bolton, Farnham) appeared for the appellant; Mr DJ Hyamson (instructed by Mr EF Churchill, Reading) represented the respondent. Mr Barry Sheen, for the appellant, Mr Hall, argued that the Judge had no alternative but to find that there had been a shared letting, because that had been admitted by Mr Haskins in his particulars of defence. Lord Justice Tucker, in giving judgment, said the plaintiff alleged a sharing of a kitchen and the defendant admitted that it was part of the tenancy agreement that there should be joint use of this room, which was used by the plaintiff as a kitchen and had a gas stove in it. The Judge had said that he was left in a state of doubt about the facts, but that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus on him to show that there was an effective agreement to share. It was clear that the Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim because the plaintiff had not discharged that onus, and in so deciding the Judge was in error. The onus of showing that the rooms he occupied were protected was on the defendant, and he had not discharged it because the Judge was left in doubt. The appeal would be allowed and there would be an order for possession. Lords Justices Asquith and Singleton agreed. It was stated that since the County Court proceedings the defendant had left the house.