DENIS CAY ADIAS, Appellant-Defendant v. ISKANDER IBRAHIM AND OTHERS, Respondents, Plaintiffs

Landlord and Tenant=Improoements=to property-Tenancy at~will-Work done

by tenants on cotton crop .

Landlord and Tenant-Tenancy at wiU-Creatioo-Whether tenants' failur~ to
pay water rents and taxes terminates tenancy

Plaintiffs were tenants cultivators, on defendant's land, under a tenancy
agreement which contained no express, terms as to termination. Defendant
made no objection to plaintiffs continuing to work on the land until they
had putin work and labouron the second crop. At . the time of defendant's
claim for possession, plaintiff had not paid the, water rents and taxes. In
this action plaintiffs claimed, compensation for work and labour on the
crop, which improved the value of the land. Defendant argued that the
tenancy had been for one crop only, and that in any case the failure to'
pay water rents and taxes terminated the tenancy. .

Held: (i) A tenancy whose terms of termination- are Dot clearly
agreed upon must be considered a tenancy at will. Mere failure to pay
the water rents and taxes does not effect forfeiture by .the tenant,

(ii) On termination of a tenancy at will the landlord would be liable for work done by the tenants which improved the value of the land.Appeal March 29, 1917. Wlisey Sterry, C.J.: In my opinion this appeal
is not entitled to succeed. I consider that - Judge peacock is right in holding that in the absence of satisfactory proof by either side of
the terms of the agreement for tenancy that at least there was a
tenancy and that it must be considered- as a tenancy at wilL In·
those circumstances it seems to me that justice, equity and good
conscience require that Mr. Cavadias should not benefit by the work
and lal1'our done by the tenants, in the capital value of his land without
paying . compensation for these improvements.

I cannot accept the contention that Mr. Cavadias puts forward
'that he has proved that the tenancy was for one crop and it is plain
on his own evidence that he let the matter go on after May", 1915;

·Court: Wasey Sterry, C.J., Maxwell Fleming J., G,W. W~n J.

expecting to come to an agreement, and therefore I consider that he .
cannot repudiate liability to pay, for the work done for the cotton
crop.

I cannot either accede to the argument that failure to pay the
water rents and taxes terminated the agreement, for on the view I
take of it there was no agreement of which this was a clause or for
failure to carry out which there was a forfeiture.

Fleming J.: I concur,
Williamson J.: I concur

Appeal dismissed

Landlord and Tenant=Improoements=to property-Tenancy at~will-Work done

by tenants on cotton crop .

Landlord and Tenant-Tenancy at wiU-Creatioo-Whether tenants' failur~ to
pay water rents and taxes terminates tenancy

Plaintiffs were tenants cultivators, on defendant's land, under a tenancy
agreement which contained no express, terms as to termination. Defendant
made no objection to plaintiffs continuing to work on the land until they
had putin work and labouron the second crop. At . the time of defendant's
claim for possession, plaintiff had not paid the, water rents and taxes. In
this action plaintiffs claimed, compensation for work and labour on the
crop, which improved the value of the land. Defendant argued that the
tenancy had been for one crop only, and that in any case the failure to'
pay water rents and taxes terminated the tenancy. .

Held: (i) A tenancy whose terms of termination- are Dot clearly
agreed upon must be considered a tenancy at will. Mere failure to pay
the water rents and taxes does not effect forfeiture by .the tenant,

(ii) On termination of a tenancy at will the landlord would be liable for work done by the tenants which improved the value of the land.Appeal March 29, 1917. Wlisey Sterry, C.J.: In my opinion this appeal
is not entitled to succeed. I consider that - Judge peacock is right in holding that in the absence of satisfactory proof by either side of
the terms of the agreement for tenancy that at least there was a
tenancy and that it must be considered- as a tenancy at wilL In·
those circumstances it seems to me that justice, equity and good
conscience require that Mr. Cavadias should not benefit by the work
and lal1'our done by the tenants, in the capital value of his land without
paying . compensation for these improvements.

I cannot accept the contention that Mr. Cavadias puts forward
'that he has proved that the tenancy was for one crop and it is plain
on his own evidence that he let the matter go on after May", 1915;

·Court: Wasey Sterry, C.J., Maxwell Fleming J., G,W. W~n J.

expecting to come to an agreement, and therefore I consider that he .
cannot repudiate liability to pay, for the work done for the cotton
crop.

I cannot either accede to the argument that failure to pay the
water rents and taxes terminated the agreement, for on the view I
take of it there was no agreement of which this was a clause or for
failure to carry out which there was a forfeiture.

Fleming J.: I concur,
Williamson J.: I concur

Appeal dismissed

Landlord and Tenant=Improoements=to property-Tenancy at~will-Work done

by tenants on cotton crop .

Landlord and Tenant-Tenancy at wiU-Creatioo-Whether tenants' failur~ to
pay water rents and taxes terminates tenancy

Plaintiffs were tenants cultivators, on defendant's land, under a tenancy
agreement which contained no express, terms as to termination. Defendant
made no objection to plaintiffs continuing to work on the land until they
had putin work and labouron the second crop. At . the time of defendant's
claim for possession, plaintiff had not paid the, water rents and taxes. In
this action plaintiffs claimed, compensation for work and labour on the
crop, which improved the value of the land. Defendant argued that the
tenancy had been for one crop only, and that in any case the failure to'
pay water rents and taxes terminated the tenancy. .

Held: (i) A tenancy whose terms of termination- are Dot clearly
agreed upon must be considered a tenancy at will. Mere failure to pay
the water rents and taxes does not effect forfeiture by .the tenant,

(ii) On termination of a tenancy at will the landlord would be liable for work done by the tenants which improved the value of the land.Appeal March 29, 1917. Wlisey Sterry, C.J.: In my opinion this appeal
is not entitled to succeed. I consider that - Judge peacock is right in holding that in the absence of satisfactory proof by either side of
the terms of the agreement for tenancy that at least there was a
tenancy and that it must be considered- as a tenancy at wilL In·
those circumstances it seems to me that justice, equity and good
conscience require that Mr. Cavadias should not benefit by the work
and lal1'our done by the tenants, in the capital value of his land without
paying . compensation for these improvements.

I cannot accept the contention that Mr. Cavadias puts forward
'that he has proved that the tenancy was for one crop and it is plain
on his own evidence that he let the matter go on after May", 1915;

·Court: Wasey Sterry, C.J., Maxwell Fleming J., G,W. W~n J.

expecting to come to an agreement, and therefore I consider that he .
cannot repudiate liability to pay, for the work done for the cotton
crop.

I cannot either accede to the argument that failure to pay the
water rents and taxes terminated the agreement, for on the view I
take of it there was no agreement of which this was a clause or for
failure to carry out which there was a forfeiture.

Fleming J.: I concur,
Williamson J.: I concur

Appeal dismissed

استمارة البحث

استمارة البحث

استمارة البحث

DENIS CAY ADIAS, Appellant-Defendant v. ISKANDER IBRAHIM AND OTHERS, Respondents, Plaintiffs

DENIS CAY ADIAS, Appellant-Defendant v. ISKANDER IBRAHIM AND OTHERS, Respondents, Plaintiffs

DENIS CAY ADIAS, Appellant-Defendant v. ISKANDER IBRAHIM AND OTHERS, Respondents, Plaintiffs