St. Kitts National Bank Ltd v Golff Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 June 1975
• Neutral Citation: KN 1975 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 83 of 1974
• Date: 27 June 1975

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 83 of 1974

St. Kitts National Bank Ltd.

and

Golff Co. Ltd.

Appearances:

C. F. Henville for plaintiff

E. Walwyn for defendant

Real property - Landlord and tenant.

Facts: The plaintiff sought to recover possession of the upper floor of the defendant company's premises - Whether the tenancy was terminated by notice served on the defendant by the plaintiff company - Whether the floor was reasonable required by the plaintiff company for use by itself for business purposes.

Held: In the circumstances it was reasonable to make an order for recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff company.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff company's claim against the defendant company is for recovery of possession of the western portion of the upper floor of the plaintiff company's premises situate at the corner of Church and Princess Streets in the town of Basseterre in the island of St. Christopher. The plaintiff company alleges that the defendant company is in possession of the said portion of the plaintiff company's premises which it held of the plaintiff company on a monthly tenancy at a rental of $200.00.

2 It is alleged by the plaintiff company that the said tenancy was duly terminated by the plaintiff company by serving on the defendant company in the month of July, 1974 a notice to quit and deliver up the said premises on the 31 ^st day of August, 1974, and that the defendant company has refused to quit and deliver up the said premises, and wrongly holds possession thereof. The plaintiff company also claims mesne profits from the tat day of September, 1974 trill possession by delivery up at the rate of $200,00 per month.

3 The defendant company, in its amended Defence admitted paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim and denied paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim in so far as the words “and held the said portion of the plaintiff on a monthly tenancy at a rental of $200.00” are concerned. The defendant company denied that the said tenancy was duly and/or lawfully terminated by a Notice in the month of July 1974 and alas denied the contents of the said notice. The defendant company alleged that the said premises are governed by the Rent Restriction Ordinance Cap. 307. In the alternative the defendant company stated that the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action.

4 The following are the facts, as I find them: The plaintiff company and the defendant company are companies duly registered under the laws of the State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, and have their principal offices in premises situate at the corner of Church and Princess Streets in the town of Basseterre. The defendant company was formerly named Golff, Scanlon and Stevens Limited.

5 In March 1971 the defendant company applied to the Manager of the plaintiff company “for a 3-year lease of the four rooms upstairs the new building of the St. Kitts Nevis-Anguilla National Bank”. The defendant company also requested approval of its application, and information regarding the terms of the lease. By letter dated the 7 ^th April, 1971 the Manager of the plaintiff company wrote the defendant company in the following terms:

“Dear Sirs,

Lease of four rooms upstairs New Bank Building.

We are pleased to inform you that we have decided to lease to you the accommodation under reference. This decision is subject to our being granted permission to sublet by our landlord.

• 2. The rental will be $200 per month payable in advance on the first day of each month.

• 3. You will panel, tile, ceil, air-condition and furnish the rooms.

• 4. The above conditions together with other and the usual terms and conditions will be the subject of a formal lease.”

6 The said premises situate at the corner of Church and Princess Streets in the town of Basseterre are and were at all material times owned by the Government of this State and leased by the Government to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company sought Government's approval to lease four rooms upstairs of the said premises to the defendant company for three years, but Government informed the plaintiff company by letter dated 1 ^st May, 1971 that approval would only be given to sublet the said four rooms to the defendant company on a month to month basis. The defendant company was informed accordingly on the 7 ^th May 1971. In the meantime the defendant company engaged a firm of building contractors who panelled, tiled veiled carpeted and air-conditioned the said four rooms.

7 On or about 3 ^rd June, 1971 the defendant company received from the plaintiff company a letter dated the 3 ^rd June, 1971 which reads as follows:

“Dear Sirs,

Rental of Office Premises

Further to our discussions on the subject rental, we are pleased to confirm that in the extreme event of your being requested to give up said premises before the expiration of three years from the date of rental, we would make appropriate allowance for the undepreciated portion of the cost of the relevant fixtures provided by yourselves in said premises.”

8 The defendant company had requested a three-year lease. When it was informed that it could only have the said four rooms on a month to month basis, it sought to protect itself by obtaining from the plaintiff...