Central London Property Trust v/s High Trees House Ltd (1947) 

Facts of the Case

A block of flat was leased by the respondent, High Trees Ltd in the year 1937 from the appellant, Central London Property Trust Ltd for the distinct amount of £2500 per annum. The decided rent was not paid by the defendant due to the war like situation in 1940, this led to bring down the amount of rent and non-fulfillment of contract as well. But later on, it was mutually decided by both the parties that the rent should be paid to the half of the total amount i.e. £1250 per annum during war like situation and the same contract was being carried forward by both parties but when the state of affairs were brought down by the authorities and by 1945, the flats were back at full occupancy so, the respondent was supposed to pay the distinct amount and the payment was denied for the same as the flats were occupied fully and the infrastructure rated as it was demanded. Due to non-payment of full rental costs, High Trees was sued.

Issues

In the High Court of Justice, following issues were raised:

• the landlord did not seek the arrears; appellant claimed for payment of rental when the flats were reoccupied fully.
• the marked agreement for £2500 was for war time situation rather than the lifetime lease.

Arguments 

The contention of plaintiff was such that he agreed upon half of the cost of rent only for a period of war time rather than not for the lease of his whole life with addition to this, the marked statement of the landlord was such that he did not claim the arrears of the war time as given at a distinct amount of £1250 per annum.

The contention of the defendant was such that he claimed the agreement to be enforceable for life time rather it was for a period of war and the rent that was being brought down only because of non-occupancy of the flats and the fact was confound by the tenant as half of the rent was applicable for whole life of lease.

Judgement 

The court held that it was not unjust to waive the right for payment of rent. J. Denning went thoroughly through the agreement and reached on the conclusion as that it was made crystal clear by the landlord to pay half the rentals only for war time period neither for lifetime of the lease nor for a specified period of years. Similarly, the evidences clearly stated that the rent was only applicable during war. So, the Court came on to a decision that the defendant is liable to pay the rent after the occupancy of flats were full. Furthermore, court added that it was not unjust to waive the right of rent after war time.

References 

www.lawteacher.net

https://casebrief.fandom.com/

Hughes v/s Metropolitan Railway Co (1872) 2 App Cas 49

This analysis is written by Nehal Soni an intern under legal vidhiya

Admin