Black v The Mayor and the Citizens of Castries
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Peterkin, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1978 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1978 CA 4 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 25 May 1978 |
Court of Appeal
Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Nedd, J.A. (Ag)
Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1977
W. Cenac, Q.C., with him B. Edwards for the appellant.
K. Monplaisir for the respondent.
Real property - Landlord and tenant — Recovery of possession — Appellant should be paid for improvements to the property done with the approval of the landlord.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Renwick, J. ordering that the appellant give up possession of certain premises the property of the respondents, and for the payment by him of mesne profits.
The facts and circumstances are that by lease dated 31st December, 1964, the appellant leased from the respondents a lot of land situate in Castries for a term of five years at an annual rent of forty dollars with an option to renew for a further period of five years. There was no provision in the lease as to the time within which the option was to be exercised. During his term of five years, the lessee constructed on the premises a concrete structure with steel reinforcements covered with galvanise, where he carried on the business of a petrol service station.
On 1st June, 1970, six months after the term had expired, the appellant wrote seeking to exercise his option to renew. After some correspondence, the respondent offered to renew the lease but at an increased rent of $40.00 per month. The appellant did not agree. He however continued to occupy the land. By letter dated 25th February, 1972, respondent gave the appellant notice to quit not later than 30th April, 1972, but the appellant continued in occupation on the ground that the acceptance of rent after the expiry of the original term, coupled with his letter of 1/6/70, amounted to a valid exercise of his option to renew the lease for a further five years. This has been conceded. On 24 th August, 1976, the respondent issued a specially endorsed writ claiming from the appellant (1) possession of the premises, and (2) mesne profits from 31st December, 1974, the date of expiry of the second five-year term.
The appellant counterclaimed for,
-
(1) Payment for improvements made;
-
(2) A declaration that he had a right to retain possession of the premises until he was re-imbursed for his improvements;
-
(3) A set-off of any amount payable to the respondent against any amount payable to him for improvements.
On 13th May, 1977, Renwick, J. made the following Order:
“The defendant is hereby ordered to deliver up possession of the leased premises on or before 30th June; to pay to the plaintiffs $100.00 being the mesne profits claimed from 31st December, 1974, and costs to be taxed.”
Against this decision the appellant has appealed on the following grounds:
(1) The learned judge erred in law by holding that, because the respondent did not wish to retain the improvements and additions, the respondent was not, in all the circumstances, under any legal obligation to compensate the appellant for the same. He so erred for the following reasons–
(a) He misconstrued the meaning and effect of Article 1544 of the Civil Code;
(b) He failed adequately or at all to consider the rights of the appellant to be compensated for the said improvements and additions, and in particular, the right of the appellant to compensation arising from the respondent's approval of and consent to the said improvements and additions.
(2)(a) The learned judge erred in law in that although he found that the said additions and improvements had some value, he failed to determine that value or to make any award in favour of the appellant for the same;
(b) The learned judge erred in law in that in ordering the appellant to deliver up possession of the premises he failed to consider adequately or at all the appellant's rights in a1l the circumstances, and especially in view of the respondent's approval and consent aforesaid, to retain the premises until the appellant had been reimbursed by the respondent for the additions and improvements made by the appellant to the said premises.
(3) The finding of the learned judge that the said additions and improvements had little value is wrong in that it is against the weight of the evidence.
In his judgment, of 13th May, 1977, the trial judge found that the structure had been erected with the approval and consent of the respondents. Counsel for the respondents has been critical of this finding, but there has, however, been no cross appeal filed against the judgment. He also went on to find that the appellant had paid no rent since June, 1970, and indeed, had ceased to operate his service station from about 1971. He found too that on the appellant's own admission the lease had expired, and that whatever tenancy he may have had was duly terminated by notice properly given. The trial judge then referred to Article 1544 of the Civil Code, Cap. 242, and concluded that in his view, although the section gave the lessor an option to retain the improvements and additions on payment of their value, he could not be compelled to do so, but that the lessee had the right to remove the additions. Also, in effect, that since the lessors in the instant case did not wish to retain the improvements, the lessee was not entitled to be reimbursed. He then went on to make the order for possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial