M'Farlane v. Mitchell [1900] ScotLR 37_705 (24 May 1900)

M'Farlane v. Mitchell [1900] ScotLR 37_705 (24 May 1900)

Tenant, by remaining in the premises after being notified of increased rent and not protesting further, must be held to have agreed to the landlord's terms and is liable for rent at the increased rate.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_705
Parties
Pursuer: Miss Margaret M'Farlane; Pursuer: Miss Agnes M'Farlane; Defender: Alexander Burgess Mitchell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 May 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Renewal, Tacit Relocation, Agreement to Pay Increased Rent
Property Law Contract Law Lease Renewal Tacit Relocation Agreement to Pay Increased Rent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Margaret M'Farlane

Pursuer

Miss Agnes M'Farlane

Pursuer

Alexander Burgess Mitchell

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant is liable for increased rent after remaining in premises following landlord's intimation of new terms
  2. 2 Whether tacit relocation applies when new terms are intimated and tenant refuses assent

Ratio Decidendi

Tenant, by remaining in the premises after being notified of increased rent and not protesting further, must be held to have agreed to the landlord's terms and is liable for rent at the increased rate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defender to pay £55, with interest at 5% per annum from Martinmas 1899 until payment, with expenses.