Case ID: app-dc_43/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Shepard", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZANTZINGER v. JOSEPH.
    Landlord and Tenant; Lease; Notice oe Termination.
    Where a lease gives the lessor and lessee alike the privilege of terminating the lease upon giving a ninety days’ notice,, the lessor has the right to terminate the tenancy upon giving such a notice, and to recover possession of the leased premises.
    No. 2772.
    Submitted April 26, 1915.
    Decided May 10, 1915.
    Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in an action by a landlord against his tenant to recover possession of the leased premises.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    Mary V. Joseph is the owner in fee of lot 34, block 16, in Deanwood Heights,' by purchase from Robert W. Gilliam, and is also the assignee of a lease made by Gilliam to Zantzinger.
    
      Tlie lease seems to have been written by Zauizinger, and on the 5th day of July, 1912, lets the premises to Zantzinger for three years, commencing on July 5, 1912, for a monthly rental of $1S payable in advance, with the privilege of occupation for three years after the expiration of the original three-year term upon the same terms and conditions.
    The lease has several covenants and provisions, among them one preventing the use of the premises for any disorderly or unlawful purpose. It contains this further condition: “But
    if no default occurs on the part of said lessee, then he shall be entitled to not less than ninety days’ notice to vacate the house and premises, which notice shall be given in writing, at least thirty days before said tenancy'is intended to be terminated, and the owner or agent shall be entitled to the same notice from the lessee, should he desire to vacate the aforesaid house and premises.”
    The lessee desiring to terminate the lease and regain possession of the promises gave ninety days’ notice as provided by the aboAre clause, and demanded possession. The tenant refused, and she instituted an action in the municipal court for recovery, and obtained a judgment. Defendant appealed from this judgment to the supreme court of the District, where judgment Avas again rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.
    
      Mr. Hayden Johnson for the appellant.
    
      Mr. George C. Shinn and Mr. C. W. Owen for the appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The last clause of the lease gave the lessee and lessor alike the privilege of terminating the lease upon grving notice as required.

We think the court was right in giving judgment for the plaintiff, and it is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.