In the case of (1948) 1 All ER 306, renowned legal champion, Lord Denning, conceded that the rights created in a tenant could not come to an end by frustration, when the property is accidentally destroyed. He stressed that the contract of tenancy continued between the parties despite the destruction of the house, be it natural collapse or destruction by fire or tempest.
However, in Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, para-2066 made a rather interesting treatment of the concept of contractual tenancy and reduced the concept of property to that of a subject matter:
"2066. Total destruction of subject-matter. A demise must have a subject matter, either corporeal or incorporeal. If the subject-matter is destroyed entirely, it is submitted that the lease comes automatically to an end, for there is no longer any demise. The mere destruction of a building on land is not total destruction of the subject-matter of a lease of the land and building, so the demise continues. But if by some convulsion of the nature the very site ceases to exist, by being swallowed up altogether or buried in the depths of the sea, it seems clear that any lease of the property must come to an end.
This view is consistent with the lessee's entitlement to an apportionment of rent in the event of the total loss of part of the demised land. Likewise since a demise of part of a building above the ground necessitates the definition of a physical subject-matter by walls, floors and ceilings, there being no such thing in law as a demise of a volume of space above the surface of the earth unbounded by physical walls, floors or ceilings, it is submitted that the demise of part of a building, without any of the soil upon which the building stands can survive such a destruction of the building as leaves physically defined subject-matter of the demise."
In Article 592, of American Jurisprudence relied on in the following statement is made -
"592. Complete destruction.
The common-law rule that a lessee is not relieved of his obligation to pay rent through the accidental destruction of the buildings demised to him presupposes that some part of the premises remains in existence for occupation by the tenant, irrespective of the destruction. If the destruction of the premises is complete -- nothing remaining, the subject matter or thing leased no longer existing then the liability of the tenant for rent cases. This is because rent is a profit issuing out of the lands or tenements as compensation for the use of occupation. Hence, if the principal is gone, the interest or incident cannot continue to exist. Thus, it has been held that the destruction of the property extinguishes the liability for rent, as under a lease of a river front and landing consisting of a narrow footing at the base of a bluff without any wharf, dock, or pier, where the unprecedented ravages of the river effectually took away the use of the landing by washing away all but a shallow fragment of the lot. Likewise, the liability of a tenant for rent subsequently to accrue under a lease of a building, which does not include the freehold, is terminated upon the destination of the building.
Various Indian judges have held that the statement of law made in Article 592 of American Jurisprudence and para 2066 of Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant cannot be applicable in our country.
However, in Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, para-2066 made a rather interesting treatment of the concept of contractual tenancy and reduced the concept of property to that of a subject matter:
"2066. Total destruction of subject-matter. A demise must have a subject matter, either corporeal or incorporeal. If the subject-matter is destroyed entirely, it is submitted that the lease comes automatically to an end, for there is no longer any demise. The mere destruction of a building on land is not total destruction of the subject-matter of a lease of the land and building, so the demise continues. But if by some convulsion of the nature the very site ceases to exist, by being swallowed up altogether or buried in the depths of the sea, it seems clear that any lease of the property must come to an end.
This view is consistent with the lessee's entitlement to an apportionment of rent in the event of the total loss of part of the demised land. Likewise since a demise of part of a building above the ground necessitates the definition of a physical subject-matter by walls, floors and ceilings, there being no such thing in law as a demise of a volume of space above the surface of the earth unbounded by physical walls, floors or ceilings, it is submitted that the demise of part of a building, without any of the soil upon which the building stands can survive such a destruction of the building as leaves physically defined subject-matter of the demise."
In Article 592, of American Jurisprudence relied on in the following statement is made -
"592. Complete destruction.
The common-law rule that a lessee is not relieved of his obligation to pay rent through the accidental destruction of the buildings demised to him presupposes that some part of the premises remains in existence for occupation by the tenant, irrespective of the destruction. If the destruction of the premises is complete -- nothing remaining, the subject matter or thing leased no longer existing then the liability of the tenant for rent cases. This is because rent is a profit issuing out of the lands or tenements as compensation for the use of occupation. Hence, if the principal is gone, the interest or incident cannot continue to exist. Thus, it has been held that the destruction of the property extinguishes the liability for rent, as under a lease of a river front and landing consisting of a narrow footing at the base of a bluff without any wharf, dock, or pier, where the unprecedented ravages of the river effectually took away the use of the landing by washing away all but a shallow fragment of the lot. Likewise, the liability of a tenant for rent subsequently to accrue under a lease of a building, which does not include the freehold, is terminated upon the destination of the building.
Various Indian judges have held that the statement of law made in Article 592 of American Jurisprudence and para 2066 of Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant cannot be applicable in our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment