The Landlord Meets His Tenant - Case Study Paper Example

Procedural facts: This case was first heard and determined by the trial court with a sitting of no jury. The trial court sustained that there was no tenant's defense of constructive that involved eviction and thus entered the judgment for defendant. This case proceeded to Appellate Division where it was reversed. The Appellant Division held that the proof at hand did not weigh or constitute an eviction that is constructive. It also ruled that such omissions or act could be traceable, and defendant had waived it by his inadequate to remove out of the premises within a given reasonable time that was agreed. The defendant had to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the Appellant Division, hence that is how the case to the Supreme Court where the reading is taking place.

Substantive facts: The defendant who is Cooper had leased from the plaintiff, who is Realty Corporation a floor for commercial purpose. The point of dispute here between the defendant and the plaintiff is whether the defendant was justified to vacate the premises with or without paying the plaintiff rent arrears. Another crucial question that was supposed to be raveled here was is the landlord was supposedly guilty of breach of the agreement which was justified by the defendant' removal from the plaintiff's premises as at 30th December 1961. Thus, in the trial court, the court held that the plaintiff breached the covenant by not honoring what his agents had promised from time to time to deliver.

Issues: The pertinent issue, in this case, is whether the agent/ landlord breached the agreement of having a quiet enjoyment of the property leased and thus necessitating the tenant a right remedying of constructive eviction.

Holdings: Reversed. Flooding which was periodic to the office of the tenant after the landlord had promised to fix it despite repeated pleas from the tenant to fix the problem established a constructive eviction.

Rule: Basically, an agreement of quite an enjoyment if breached leads to substantially the landlord applying the constructive eviction doctrine as a remedying to the pleas of the tenant. The tenant's constructive eviction claim right will be lost only if the said tenant does not evacuate the premises within a given reasonable period after right period comes into existence. Therefore, reasonableness is determined by circumstances and facts of a particular case.

Analysis: This court intensively analyzed the various factors and standards for constructive of whether the landlord, in fact, did interfere with the pact of quite an enjoyment that led to the court impose a remedy. Thus, the court brought to the limelight that the landlord ought to have noticed. Equally that the tenant cannot at any given time consent to a defect that renders the property unsuitable for use.

References

Laird, E. C. (1969). Reste Realty Corporation-The Landlord Meets His Tenant. Rutgers L. Rev., 24, 508.