Boswell v Crucible Steel Company
[1925] 1 K.B. 119(Decision by: Scrutton LJ)
Between: Boswell
And: Crucible Steel Company
Judges:
Bankes LJ
Scrutton LJAtkin LJ
Subject References:
LEAVE
COVENANTS
'Landlord's Fixtures'
Judgment date: 20 October 1924
Decision by:
Scrutton LJ
In this case the question is whether the landlord or the tenant is to replace certain broken windows. The premises consist of a ground floor used as a warehouse and offices, and it appears from the photograph and plan which were put in that the greater part of the outer sides of the building consists of plate-glass windows, so that the premises are practically enclosed in a wall of glass. In the lease the tenant covenanted to repair the inside of the demised premises, "including all landlord's fixtures," and the landlord covenanted to repair "the demised premises," except so far as the tenant had covenanted to repair them. Some of the plate-glass windows having been broken, the landlord claims that they are landlord's fixtures and that the liability to repair them falls on the tenant. The meaning of the term "tenant's fixtures" is well understood, but I have always had a difficulty in understanding what is meant by "landlord's fixtures."
But at all events it seems to me clear that that expression cannot include a thing which forms part of the original structure of the building. It must be regarded as confined to things which have been brought into the house and affixed to the freehold after the structure is completed. If these windows could be treated as landlord's fixtures, the whole house would be a landlord's fixture. Then, if they are not landlord's fixtures, the landlord is bound to repair them, for they were plainly part of the demised premises. The county court judge held that the windows were not part of the wall of the house. Therein I think he was wrong.