Landlord and Tenant-Joint tenancy-Notice of termination 0/ lease by one of
two joint tenants as to the part of the house occupied by him

Landlord and Tenant-s-Termination of lease-Must be by al/ tenants-Partial
termination-Effect of obtaining change in tax rates

Defendants were tenants of plaintiffs' house in Khartoum under a lease
from year to year, occupying separate floors by an agreement between them-
selves. The lease provided for te.rmination by either party upon two months
notice. Second defendant gave notice of his intention to quit. Plaintiffs
replied by letter that defendants were joint tenants and notice by one of
them alone would not suffice to determine the lease. Second defendant quit
the premises and first defendant continued in occupation of one floor only.
The other floor being vacant, plaintiffs obtained a lower assessment on the
house from the municipal rating authorities. In this action plaintiffs
claimed for rent due for eleven months.

Held: (i) Defendants were joint tenants and their agreement between
themselves respecting occupation of the two floors could not affect that
status.

(ii) A joint tenancy cannot be determined by notice of one tenant's
intention to quit that part of the premises occupied by him.

(iii) The fact that plaintiffs had secured a lower rate assessment on
the basis of partial vacancy did not constitu:e an admission of plaintiffs' ac-
ceptance of termination of the joint tenancy.

In re Viola's III demure oj Lease [1909) 1 Ch.D. 244 followed.

Action

June 15, 1936. Flaxman, J.: On May 28, 1932, the two
defendants made an agreement with the plaintiffs, under which the
former became tenants at an agreed rental of £E.8 per month of
the plaintiffs' premises known as house No.3, block 9 A West,
Khartoum for a period of one year, the lease to be renewed for
subsequent periods of one year unless two months notice to terminate
was given by either party.

On June 8, 1935, the plaintiffs instituted an action against the
defendants for a sum of over £ E.l 00 as arrears of rental to May 31,
1935, and by agreement between plaintiffs and the first defendant

judgement was given on June 20, 1935, for a sum of £E.85 and
costs. The second defendant was duly served with a copy of the
decree on July 7, 1935. It may be noted in connection with facts
that will appear later, that the learned trial judge (Sandes J.) recorded
the following in the proceedings: "N.B. The defendants are still
remaining on as tenants and the above represents the defendants'
liability to plaintiffs for period ending May 31, 1935."

The present action is in respect of rental claimed to be due
under the above agreement for the period from June 1, 1935 to
April 30, t 93 6, a period of eleven months. The plaintiffs stated
that they have agreed to reduce the rental to £E.7.500 m/ms from
the beginning of that period, and, for reasons that appear in these
proceedings, are now claiming rental on a basis of £E.7.000 m/rns
per month-a total of £E.77.000 m/rns. In addition they apply
for an order giving them possession, and in view of the fact that they
seem to have recovered no rental for these premises for some two
years it is surprising that they have delayed so long .

. The demised property is a two-story building. The defendants
are brothers-in-law and by a family arrangement with which the
plaintiffs are not concerned the ground floor was occupied by first
defendant and the first floor by second defendant. In law I take
them to be joint tenants of the property, and each tenanted the whole
without discrimination between the two stories.

The defendants state that the second defendant quitted the prem-
ises at some date before June 1, 1935, and first defendant alleges
that plaintiffs verbally agreed that he should continue in occupation
of the ground floor only at a rental of £E.4 per month-one half
of the sum originally agreed for the whole property. In his evidence
the first defendant has sworn that this agreement took place in
April 1935. If this is so it is strange that no reference to the
matter was made in .J une of that year in the course of the hearing
of the claim for rental to the end of May; and particularly so in
view of the judge'S note referred to above. The alleged agreement
is denied by the plaintiffs.

It is common ground that by a letter dated February 27, 1935,
the second defendant gave the plaintiffs notice of his intention to
vacate the premises on May 31, 1935. This letter was replied to
by the plaintiffs on March 18, 1935, in a Jetter in which in my
opinion they correctly stated the legal position, i.e., that where tenants

are joint lessees, effective notice to terminate the lease cannot be
given by one of the tenants alone; they must both express their desire
to determine.

In this case the lease contained a proviso enabling the "tenant"
(defined as Khawagat Christo Papalexes and Basil Efstratio) to term-
inate and in my opinion a notice given by one of these two lessees
only will not be effectual to determine the lease. I have referred
to In re Viola's Indenture of Lease [1909] 1 Ch.D. 244. And in
this case the intention was not to quit the whole property; one of
the joint tenants wished to vacate a part thereof.

In my view, whether or not the second defendant actually left
the premises, he has not relieved himself of his liabilities to the
plaintiffs under the lease covenants.

It is argued by the first defendant that there was a new agree-
ment effective from June 1, 1935, and that the plaintiffs admitted
the position to the extent of obtaining a revision of rate assessment
from that date by representing to the rating authorities that the first
floor of the premises was vacant. That such a step was taken by tbe
plaintiffs is admitted.

The first defendant also suggested to the appearing plaintiff
in cross examination that the latter had sent prospective tenants to
view the upper half of the premises and had placed a "To let"
board thereon. This was denied and no evidence was produced by
the defendants in support of the suggestions .

.It might be argued for the defendants that the plaintiffs by their
action in obtaining a severance of the rate valuation of the premises
had accepted the position created by the second defendant's departure
and cannot now rely upon the original tenancy agreement. In some
ways I should li .e to be able to accept such a proposition, but I do
not think such a course would be justified in law. The first defendant
and second defendant are not the tenants of the ground and first
floors respectively. Each is the tenant of the whole properly. The
fact that the plaintiffs, and incidentally, the first defendant, saw an
opportunity of obtaining a reduction of taxation, does not necessarily
release the defendants from their obligations under the lease.

I am not satisfied by the evidence that there was any agreement
by plaintiffs to accept a rental from first defendant for one half of
the demised property only, and I find that both defendants are bound
by the tenancy agreement and jointly and severally liable for the