Morcom and Ors v Campbell-Johnson and Ors

[1955] 3 All ER 264
[1956] 1 QB 106

---

Between: Morcom and Ors
And: Campbell-Johnson and Ors

Court:

Judges: Denning LJ
Hodson LJ
Morris LJ

Subject References:
LANDLORD AND TENANT
RENT
Rent Restriction
Permitted increase
'Improvement' of house
Repairs
Flats
Substitution of modern one-pipe for worn out two-pipe drainage system
Substitution of single large water tank for separate tanks in each flat
Raising of area

Legislative References:
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 - (10 & 11 Geo 5 c 17), s 2(1)(a)

Case References:
Strood Estates Co Ltd v Gregory - [1937] 3 All ER 656; [1938] AC 118; 106 LJKB 752; 157 LT 338; 31 Digest (Repl) 667, 7660
Wates v Rowland - [1952] 1 All ER 470; [1952] 2 QB 12; 3rd Digest Supp
Rabbitt v Grant - [1940] IR 323; 31 Digest (Repl) 679, 2555
Lurcott v Wakely & Wheeler - [1911] 1 KB 905; 80 LJKB 713; 104 LT 290; 31 Digest (Repl) 363, 4953

Hearing date: 5 October 1955
Judgment date: 6 October 1955

---

ORDER

Appeal allowed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Landlords of a block of six flats subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts carried out certain works on the premises in respect of which they claimed the right to charge an increase of rent under s 2(1)(a) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The works comprised: (i) the substitution for two worn out sets of pipes, one taking refuse from water closets and the other water from wash-hand basins and baths, of the cheaper modern one-pipe system conveying both refuse and water by one pipe to the drains; (ii) the substitution for a worn out eighty-gallon water tank in each flat of a single 480-gallon tank to supply all the six flats; (iii) the lowering of the area adjacent to the flats so that it was no longer above the damp course in the building as originally constructed and so would not cause damp in the walls.

Held

The landlords were not entitled to an increase in the rents in respect of the works, since the expenditure was incurred, in the first two cases, on repairs by replacing old parts with modern equivalents and not "on the improvement ... of the dwelling-house" within the meaning of the section, which meant an improvement from the tenant's point of view, and in the third case not on the improvement of the block of flats or of any individual flat.

Appeal allowed.

Notes

For permitted increases of rent of controlled houses for improvements, see 20 Halsbury's Laws (2nd Edn) 323, para 383.

For the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, s 2(1)(a), see 13 Halsbury's Statutes (2nd Edn) 984; and for cases on the subject, see 31 Digest (Repl).

Appeal

The landlords of six flats at Grey Coat Gardens, Westminster, applied to the Westminster County Court to determine the amount by which the rents of the flats might exceed the standard rents by reason of expenditure which they contended they had incurred on the improvement or the structural alteration or the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings of the premises. The tenants contended that the works carried out were not improvements or structural alterations to the flats within the meaning of s 2(1)(a) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as amended by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, s 3(1) and Sch 1, and that therefore no increase of rent was payable in respect thereof. On 23 May 1955, His Honour Judge Dale held that the works were improvements to the flats within the meaning of the sub-section and that increases of rents therefore fell to be made in respect thereof.

The tenants appealed.

R E Megarry and J H W Silberrad for the tenants.

H Heathcote-Williams QC and S Rees for the landlords.

6 October 1955.  The following judgments were delivered.