Reliance Manufactory Ltd v. Climax Paper Converters Ltd

HCA002511/1982

BETWEEN

_________________

Coram: Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 6 October 1982

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is a claim in which the plaintiff, who is the owner of a factory building known as the Reliance Manufactory Building claims arrears of rent and also the cost of restoring that part of the building which had been let to the defendant, into the condition it was when the tenancy commenced. It is the plaintiff's case that by agreement the lease, which had expired on 15th October, 1981 was extended from that date on a monthly basis. On the 15th January 1982 a further month's rent became due to the plaintiff and although the defendant vacated the premises on the 22nd January it was nevertheless still liable to pay that one month rent, $60,000.

2. The plaintiff also claims that when the defendant vacated the premises there was electrical wiring which it did not remove and this would have to be done in order that the premises could be relet. There was also certain plumbing and other work required and the walls required to be re-whitewashed. It is the plaintiff's case that in fact the sum of $1,480.00 has been so expended and that the cost of doing the other work required will be $23,500.00. The plaintiff also claims in respect of arrears of maintenance charges to the premises amounting to $2,400.00 and for rates of the premises for the month of January 1982, amounting to $1,236.25.  It is not in dispute that the defendant has paid a deposit in respect of rent and maintenance charges amounting to $102,000.00 and that this amount is available as a set off against any amount which is owing by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. It is the defendant's case that after the 15th January he was simply holding over as either a tenant at will or a tenant at sufferance. It is therefore only liable to pay a proportion of a month's rent, such proportion being in this case one week. The defendant also says that it did put the premises into good order and condition prior to vacating and that the walls did not require white-washing.

4. There was correspondence between the parties upon which the plaintiff places some reliance. On a letter dated 11th September 1981 the defendant stated that they would like an extension of their tenancy for a period of two months from the 15th October 1981 to the 15th December 1981. By a letter dated the 18th September the plaintiff replied agreeing to the extension at an increased rental of $60,000 and in that letter they stated that if the plaintiff required any further period they should write to the plaintiff before the 15th November 1981 asking for such an extension. This was followed by a letter dated the 2nd December 1981 in which the plaintiff sated that before vacating the premises the defendant should carry out certain repairs to doors, windows, toilets and taps and should white-wash the walls. They also said:

"If you deliver the premises after the due date the rent to be paid should be calculated every month."

The only reply that was received to that letter was from the defendant dated the 24th December 1981 which simply said that vacant position would be delivered on the 22nd January 1982.

5. I am satisfied that after the expiration of the lease there was a monthly tenancy of this premises and that such monthly rentals are not proportionable. In the only menaing that can be placed on the letter from the plaintiff to the defendant dated 2nd December is that a month's rent was payable at the beginning of each month. There was no reply to that suggestion and I think the defendant must be now taken to have agreed to that. I did not think that they can choose which they will vacate the premises and then simply pay a proportion of a month's rent. I therefore find that the plaintiff are entitled to the arrears of rent which they claim namely $120,000 together with maintenance charges of $2,400.00 and rates $1,236.25 - a total of $123,636.25 - from that must be deducted the deposit of $102,000.00 giving an amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of arrears of rent of $21,636.25.

6. I am also satisfied that the amounts paid out by the plaintiff in respect of wiring and repairs to toilets amounting to $1,480 was properly expended and that he is entitled to recover that from the defendant. I am however not satisfied that the walls required to be white-washed. There was some evidence as to the condition, the plaintiff saying that they required to be white-washed the defendant saying that they did not and there was an independent contractor who said that while not dirty the walls will also not clean. Mr. Mumford for the plaintiff suggests that perhaps I should award a part of the cost of white-wash. I was not satisfied however that the plaintiff had made out a claim in respect of white-washing the walls and do not allow anything in respect of this item. I am however satisfied that the plaintiff will have to dismantle and remove the defendant's electrical wiring and that he is entitled to the sum of $1,500.00 in respect of that item. This then makes a total in respect of repairs to the premises of $2,980.00. There will therefore be judgment for the plaintiff for that amount in addition to the arrears of rent, maintenance charges and rates. Plaintiff is also entitled to interest at 17% from the 16th February on the amount owing for rent, maintenance charges and arrears of rates and from the day of service of the writ in respect of the amount owing' for repairs.

7. The plaintiff is entitled to costs in respect of the claim and counter-claim.

Representation:

E.C. Mumford (Samuel Soo & Co.) for the Plaintiff.

C.Y.Lee (S.H. Leung & Co.) for the defendant.