Wates v Rowland and Anor

[1952] 1 All ER 470

---

Between: Wates
And: Rowland and Anor

Court:

Judges: Sir Raymond Evershed MR
Jenkins LJ
Hodson LJ

Subject References:
HOUSING
LANDLORD AND TENANT
RENT
Rent Restriction
Permitted increase
'Improvement' of house
Structural alteration
Repairs
Replacement of defective floor
Laying of additional concrete bed

Legislative References:
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (c 17) - s 2(1)(a), s 2(5)

Case References:
Rabbitt v Grant - [1940] IR 323; 2nd Digest Supp
Strood Estates Co Ltd v Gregory - [1936] 2 All ER 355; [1936] 2 KB 605; 105 LJKB 726; 155 LT 82; affd HL [1937] 3 All ER 656; [1938] AC 118; 106 LJKB 752; 157 LT 338; 31 Digest, Replacement, 667, 7660

Hearing date: 5-6 February 1952
Judgment date: 7 February 1952

---

ORDER

Appeal allowed.

The wooden floor of a dwelling-house to which the Rent Restrictions Acts applied became rotten owing to the rise in the water level in the land. It constituted a statutory nuisance, to abate which the landlord raised the foundation of the house by adding a layer of concrete and replaced the wooden floor with a tiled one. He claimed, under s 2(1)(a) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to be permitted to charge an increase in the rent of eight per cent of the amount expended on the raising of the foundation.

Held

The replacement of the floor was within the description of repairs, but the laying of the additional concrete bed provided the house with a better substratum than it had had before and amounted to an improvement or a structural alteration of the house within s 2(1)(a), and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to increase the rent by an amount equal to the statutory percentage of the sum expended thereon.

Rabbitt v Grant ([1940] IR 323), criticised and not followed.

Notes

For Permitted increases of Rent under the Rent Restrictions Act 1920 to 1939 see Halsbury, Hailsham Edn, Vol 20, pp 323-325, paras 383-385; and for Cases see Digest, Replacement, Vol 31, pp 678-680, Nos 7713-7731, and Digest Supps.

Appeal

Appeal by the landlord against an order made by His Honour Judge Sir Gerald Hurst KC at Croydon County Court on 10 October 1951, in an action brought by the landlord against the tenants of premises owned by him.

The premises were a dwelling-house to which the Rent Restrictions Acts applied, and the landlord's claim was in respect of what he alleged to be a permitted increase in the rent of the premises on the ground that he had incurred expenditure on their "improvement" (consisting of a reconstruction of the flooring on the ground floor), within s 2(1)(a) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The tenants denied that the work had resulted in an "improvement" within para (a), and said that it was done merely to abate a statutory nuisance. The learned judge held that, in view of the exclusion from the operation of para (a) of expenditure on repairs, work which could be described as "repairs" could not constitute "improvement" within the paragraph, that the work in question could be described as "repairs", and, therefore, that the landlord could not recover the increased rent. The landlord appealed.

I C Baillieu for the landlord.

D C Humphreys for the tenants.

7 February 1952. The following judgments were delivered.