687.

LIGHT AND AIR-ADJOINING PREMISES UNDER SAME SUPERIOR

LANDLORD.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 39, 40.)

A, a leaseholder, has enjoyed uninterrupted use of light and air to premises for over twenty years, and is threatened with the serious diminution of that light and air by the erection of opposite and neighbouring premises to a greater height belonging to B (a new leaseholder), who holds his lease from the same superior landlord; and a covenant in A's lease, which is the usual lease issued to all leaseholders on the estate, says: "and shall not do or suffer to be done any wilful or voluntary waste or "spoil in or upon the said premises, or object to any works to adjoining "premises, by or on behalf of the person or persons for the time being "entitled in reversion as aforesaid. And shall not claim any easement "against the said person or persons entitled in reversion as aforesaid in, "over, or upon any adjoining or neighbouring premises belonging to the "said person or persons by reason of any act or thing done or suffered "by any tenant of such adjoining or neighbouring premises, and that not"withstanding any actual or constructive notice of such act or thing to "the said person or persons."

The leaseholder (A) of the premises whose lights are now threatened, when rebuilding his own premises some years ago, was compelled by the surveyor to the estate (now deceased) to set back his premises' main front and otherwise respect the lights of the said premises opposite, which are now to be pulled down and re-erected twice as high by the new leaseholder (B), and thus menace A's lights.

Notwithstanding the covenants of the lease aforementioned that A must not object to a neighbouring building—

1. Cannot A insist upon the superior landlord compelling B to respect A's lights?

2. Is such a covenant equitable and could it be enforced at law, and has A no redress?

688.

SEWERAGE-DIVISION OF COST BETWEEN PARISHES.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 40, 41.)

A and B are parishes whose affairs are governed by the A and B Rural District Council. A sewerage scheme has been formulated and is being carried out, the apportioned cost approved by the Local Government Board being divided between the two parishes as follows:

Each parish pays cost of its own internal sewers.

Of the cost of construction and maintenance of joint outfall works at C, A pays one-third and B two-thirds (B is the more populous parish).

The cost of B's outfall sewer D to C (of very small value to A) is equally divided between A and B

The portion of A marked X on the sketch cannot be drained except by means of B's sewers, on account of levels. This has never been mentioned in the negotiations resulting in the apportionment. In the event of the owners of the land at X building, can they send their sewerage down to the joint outfall via B's sewers, without any charge being made upon A ?

689.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-LIABILITY TO REPAIR CRACKS IN WALLS, UNPERCEIVED AT ENTRY.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 41.)

Certain property, a dweiling-house, is held upon a 7, 14, or 21 years' lease, and the repairing covenants are as follows :—

"... And also will throughout the said term at her and their own "expense without being thereunto required well and sufficiently repair, "maintain, and keep in good and substantial repair and condition the "said premises and all fixtures and additions thereto, reasonable wear "and tear always excepted." Then follow the usual covenants as to painting, &c.

The drains were relaid by the landlord, and in my opinion-supported by that of a builder-this was the cause of a settlement which has taken place. The cracks in the wall, which are serious, were at the time of the taking of the house not visible, owing to a creeper, but this being removed when painting the house, they became apparent.

Who is liable for repairing the wall (underpinning will probably be required): the lessee or the lessor ?

690.

ADJOINING OWNERS-JOINT USER OF HANGing Post for GATES

A and B are two properties which, seven years ago, belonged to one owner, who at this period sold the property A to C. Two years later he sold the property B to D. There is an entrance to property A, in the position shown on the sketch plan, and in this entrance there is a gate, the hanging post to which is (it is assumed) situated on property B. The end of the front fence to property B is also fixed to this post. The positions of the gate, the post, and the front fence, are the same as they were when property A was conveyed to C, and probably had been so for many years previously.

No reference was made to the joint user of the post in either of the deeds conveying the two properties to C and D respectively, nor on either of the plans attached to these deeds. D now contends that the post is entirely his property, and that he can compel C to remove his gate from it. C contends that he is entitled to a joint user of the post for hanging his gate to, such joint user being an implied grant from the original owner to himself when he (the original owner) severed the properties and conveyed A to him, since the full enjoyment of the property A could not be obtained without the use of the post, unless additional expenditure was incurred. What are the rights of C and D in this matter?

691.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-SUB-LEASE-LIABILITY OF INTERMEDIATE LESSEE TO REPAIR.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 42, 43.)

“And also that they will at all times during the term hereby granted observe and per"form all the covenants (except the covenants to pay rent, rates, and taxes, and to repair "and to insure) contained in the superior lease."

C (sub-lessee) holds premises under an agreement with above clause and no other unusual ones. There is a clause permitting the lessor B to

enter upon and perform thereon any of the covenants and agreements contained in the superior lease.

1. I hold that C can claim internal repairs from B; am I right?

2. Should B refuse to do internal repairs, how can C force him to do them? Has he a right to inspect the superior lease?

692.

RATING-CONTRACTOR'S SHEDS AND TEMPORARY RAILWAY.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 43, 44.)

A contractor who is carrying on an extensive building contract is rated by the local authorities on the following temporary erections: men's living huts, a store at which groceries, &c., are sold to the men, offices, cement sheds, work sheds, and shed over mortar mill, also a railway which, if left in proper order, will be taken over by the employers and paid for at the completion of the contract. Some of the huts are let at a rental, and subcontractors are charged by the contractor certain rates for the carriage of goods on the railway. Is there any precedent for the action of the local authorities? It would appear that probably some of the above may fairly be rated, but not others.

693.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESERVATION OF UNDERGROUND RIGHTS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 44, 45.)

A lets to B, on lease for 28 years, land for the purpose of excavating chalk, with the reservation to himself of "gravel and all underground "matter, &c., except chalk." B sinks a well on the land and obtains a good supply of water, which he utilises for washing his chalk through pipes to his brick field, which he is at liberty to do; but, having a greater supply than he requires, he is now supplying a public water company and receiving payment for the same. Can he legally do so without payment to A ?

694.

LEASE ASSIGNMENT FOR LESS THAN WHOLE TERM-SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE OF FEE BY ASSIGNEE.

(For a Reply to this Query see p. 45.)

Jones held a lease of premises for a term of 99 years. He assigned to Brown that term less the last ten days thereof. Brown assigned his

interest to Robinson, who subsequently purchased the fee from the head lessor of the premises, and received from him a conveyance. The conveyance would recite the lease and be granted subject to it.

Can Robinson be described as the owner in fee? Are the ten days vested in him or do they remain in Jones?

Jones cannot be found; he is probably dead. It is supposed that a lease merges in the conveyance except as to the covenants.

.695.

AGRICULTURAL YEARLY TENANCY-TWO YEARS' NOTICE TO QUIT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 45, 46.)

A somewhat novel point has arisen with regard to the tenancy of a farm we have just let.

A clause in the agreement is as follows:

"The tenancy to be a yearly one, to commence as and from the 29th day of September 1901, and to continue until terminated by twenty-four calendar months' notice being given by either party to the other, such notice to expire at the Michaelmas quarter.”

The agreement was entered into on the 31st August, 1901, and on the 8th of September the tenant served us with notice to quit the farm in 1903. I might add that the 24 months' notice was inserted at his express wish.

The opinion of solicitors whom we have consulted is that the notice is in order, but they speak with a little hesitancy, saying that there is no case on the point in question. We shall be glad to have the experience of Members in similar cases

696.

DILAPIDATIONS-COVENANT TO PAINT EVERY SEVENTH YEAR.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 46, 47.)

A tenant holding under the following three covenants to repair

"1st. And also will at all times during the said term as often as occasion shall require well and substantially repair, uphold, paint, maintain, and keep the said messuage, &c. 2nd. And also shall and will paint twice in oil in a proper and sufficient manner once in every seventh year of the said term the inside parts of the said messuage, &c. 3rd. A covenant to leave the premises at the determination of the tenancy in good and substantial condition and repair."

The tenant wishes to determine his lease at the seventh year, and has been served with a schedule of dilapidations prior to the expiration of the seventh year, requiring him to practically repaper and repaint the whole of the interior of the house, and to pay the costs of the survey.

He nas spent some £350 within the seven years, on decoration, and the house is in excellent condition, much of the painting having been recently done.