Milford chronicle., 1905-08-18
Landlord and Tenant.
NO. SIS THE LANDLORD BOUND TO MAKE
THE PREMISES TENANTABLE? WHEN Is
THE TENANT JUSTIFIED IN ABAN-
DOMINO THE PREMISES OR RE-
FUsING TO PAY RENT :

Where there is nothing In the lease laying
an obligation on the landlord to make the
premises tenantale, II is impleu IN the iaM
that the tenant took the premises ah tney
stood; In other words, there is no implied
warranty on the part OF the landlord that IN g
premises are tenantable. The great eAcep-
ton to this rule is in cases where there y
some secret or concealed detect In the prem
ises which renders them dangerous 10 lie OF
health and the defect was known TO the lanu-
lord and unknown to the tenant. FOR IN
stance II the tenant should rent property
without knowing that it had been occupied
Just previously by smallpox patient, ana
tnis fact was within the knowledge OF tne
landlord, the tenant would be Jusuued IN
abandoning the premises. some cases nave
gone to the extent OF saying tnal inns eAcoP-
Iion covers a case of defective heating or de-
fective plumbing where he deiects go 10 The
extent OF endangering life or health.
The tenant should see TO IL that IN the tease
the landlord agi ees to keep the premises IN a
tenantabie condition; nor shoulu tne IeHane Az
forget that the mere verbal promise OF tne
landlord 10 keep the premises in tenantaDle
condition. no matter when the promise was
given would not be binding.
After a lease has been executed the VsrDal
promise OF the landlord to repair ls void uh-
less there was a consideration given for ne
promise: nor would "A landlords promise 10
tenant not abandoning the premises before
the end of the term be good because ol laSh
OF consideration, the tenant already Deing
under obligation to remain until lhe enu VI
Anv indueement, whether by writing or by
word of mouth, made by the landlOrd. Whtch
leads the tenant to rent and which afterwards
proves to be false or fraudulent VIII OF COURSE
iusttfv the tenant IN abandoning, but the rep
resenLatiOn or statement must be something
more than a promise. A statement 10 the
effect that premises are tenantaDle Wnen lney
are not, such statement being used TO Induce
the tenant TO rent, may justify an aDahuOh-
menI Ofthe premises, but an uhiulnleu prom
Use OF the landlord made before the lease is
SO ana uf Z 70 ~ d. IN
feet that he will make them tenanlaDle VIII
not Justify an abandonment and, II verbal
such promise Is void.
the circumstances under which tenants may
abandon premises and refuse TO pay rent
We have seen that the mere promise OF tne
landlord TO make repairs which he iails 10
fulfill. will not Justify abandoning the prem
ises and refusing to pay rent IL Is the usual
course pursued by tenants. but the courts as
a rule will not permit the tehant thus 10 take
the remedy into his own hands. There are
two courses open TO the tenant II lhe laha-
lord has promised to make repairs, or MAKE
and falls or refuses TO 40 so
one is to sue the landlord for damages, ana
Ihe other is to make the repairs or improve
ments aHd sue the landlord for the cost OF
them and the tenant may recover IN hls /
'ndsment not only for the cost OF epairs but
Tor the damage he has suffered by Interrupt |
lion TO bis business or otherwise during me
lime that the premises were being repaired /
But Il is never allowable FOR the tenant 10 re- |
main in possession and at the same time re- /.
Tuse 10 nav rent; nor is an unfulfilled promise |
ground for abandonment
To this general statement Which seems !
somewhat unjust on It's face, there is the gen. !
sraI exception that II the premises are a0sO- |
utely unfit for the purposes Tor wnich tney 1
we're rented or become so through the land- /
ord's fault in not keeping his promise, the |
enant is released from his contract and may I
ABANDON the premises but this exception has /
lot been upheld iH every case. Where II has .
1een upheld it Is only where there has been a .
otal failure OF consideration, that is, where
premises have been totally unnt Ior the
purposes intendediOr Where the lahuIoIu mas ,
lroken au express promise to make them
Another class Of cases is where the landlord
lgrees to make certain repairs or improve
nents before the tenant takes possession.
Ne have seen that after the tenant has once
AIKEN possession broken promise on tne
lart ei a landlord, as rule, does not JUSTIFY
he landAOre has failed to make the repairs
N The IffDvements and the tenant has not
-et taken2 ossessiOn, the tenant may refuse
o take possession on the ground mat ne ls
eleased from his contract, Here,as IN Other
ases we caution the tenant that II the lease
lself is IN writing the landlords agreement
egardiDg repairs, to be binding must be IN
erted In the lease ITSELF IL IS general RUE
Z the law that where a contact Is reduced
o Writil g the law presumes that the wiring
untains all the terms and one Is not permit
en- to offer testimony that adds to Or varies
he terms as written. IL is adm issiblei how
YER to show that after the contact was
nade II was varied by verbal agreement.
II the landlord is to make repairs before d
ossession is to be given to the tenant ard the
snant enters the premises before the Re pairs
re made. he does not thereby waive his right
D have them made.
AS fraud vitiates a contract so a tenant
lav abandon the premises and refuse to pay
mi when be was induced to take the prem
es by false statements The false state
tents need not be in the lease itself any
ling said or done by the landlord, even
lough iHnOcently, which is materially false,
nd at the same time induces tenant TO
Ike the premises, will result In annulling
Ne contract The mere cOncealment by the
ndlord Of some defect. provided the defect
.nders the premises dangerous to life or I
salth will amount 10 mtsstatement' but
le concealment of immaterlal matters viii
Ot so operate. I
II then tenant intends TO take advantage Of
lse statements 10 surrender bis lease he I
lst do so promptly upon discovering that
e staten ents were false. His failure 10 do
, promptly Will lead 20 tie presumption
al ne has waived bis right He may not
,iv abandon the premises IN such cases but I
! NAV sue for damages. Furthermore, he
ay remain in possession II he pleases tWalV-
2 his right to abandon the premises, ana
ay sue for damages caused by the fraud