Sagos v Butt et Al

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 April 1992
• Neutral Citation: MS 1992 HC 4
• Docket Number: 35 of 1990
• Date: 19 April 1992

Sagos

and

Butt et al

Redhead, J.

35 of 1990

High Court

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Recovery of rent — Action brought by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of rent and for delivery of premises occupied by defendants — Plaintiff served notice on defendant who refused to obey and plaintiff did not accept rent — Defendant willing to pay rent — Plaintiff not owner of premises and not entitled to recover rent and order possession — Adjournment and agreement reached — Costs not awarded against defendants — No order as to costs.

Redhead, J.

1 This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of rent from January, 1990 to July, 1990 and for delivery of possession of premises occupied by the defendants.

2 The plaintiff herself, was a tenant of one Robert Griffith. Her aunt rented commercial premises from him for about 30 years. After the death of the aunt, the plaintiff took over the premises paying a monthly rent of $450.00 for two properties, one on Parliament Street and the other at Chapel Street.

3 The plaintiff sublet the premises to the defendants in or about October 1988. After Hurricane Hugo in 1989 the plaintiff stored two boxes in the premises rented by the defendants. This brought about unhappy differences between the parties. As a result, the plaintiff gave the defendants a written notice dated 1st November, 1989, to quit and deliver up the premises to the plaintiff by 31st December, 1989

4 The defendants paid their rent up to the end of December 1989 but did not deliver up the possession of the premises as the notice required them to do.

5 At the end of January, the defendants offered the monthly rent to the plaintiff who refused to accept the rent.

6 The plaintiff sought legal advice. As a result the plaintiff's solicitor sent the defendants a notice which required them to quit and deliver up the premises by 11th May, 1990. The defendants did not give up possession of the premises on that date. In fact, the defendants are still in possession of the premises. It seems that the defendants have entered into a separate agreement with the owners of the premises.

7 As a result of the failure of the defendants to pay the rent, so alleged the plaintiff, and failure to give up the premises, the plaintiff issued a writ against the defendants on the 21st Nay, 1990 claiming arrears of rent and delivery up of possession.

8 The defendants in their defence at paragraph 14 thereof, state that the first named defendant is willing and ready to pay the rent in question.

9 The defendants had also counterclaimed against the plaintiff claiming the return of money which they allegedly spent in renovating the premises in reliance on an agreement from the plaintiff that she would give them a three year lease.

10 The defendants have also claimed Specific Agreement of the agreement in the counterclaim.

11 After the plaintiff had finished giving her evidence in chief, and was being cross-examined, the court drew the attention of paragraph 14 to both counsel and pointed out that there was no live issue before the court, because in any case, the defendants could not succeed on the counter claim. The court would not...