Court Opinion

ID: 9604355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:20:17.499018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:21.463654
License: Public Domain

Gardner, P. J.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Special ground 1 assigns error because it is alleged that the court ei'red in charging the jury as follows: “I give you in chargé Code § 61-111: The landlord must keep the premises in repair, and shall be liable for all substantial improvements placed upon them by his consent.” It is contended that the lease created an estate for years and that the tenant was liable for repairs. It is true that a tenant for years is bound for all repairs and other expenses for the preservation of the leased property during the term of the contract. See Code § 85-805. It is also true that all leases for five years do not necessarily create an estate for years but that there is a presumption that a lease for five years does convey an estate for years. See Midtown Chain Hotels Co. v. Bender, 77 Ga. App. 723, 728 (49 S. E. 2d 779). Whether or not the court erred in charging the excerpt as set out in this special ground turns on whether or not the lease contract created an estate for years. The jury’s verdict showed that the jury interpreted the evidence regarding the lease as creating the relationship of landlord and tenant and not an estate for years. No doubt the jury and the trial judge considered the intention of the parties and the severability of the amount of rent to be paid for different years. The jury were authorized, under the evidence, to find that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. See Johnson v. Brice, 151 Ga. 472 (107 S. E. 338). Therefore, the court did not err in charging this excerpt. This special ground is without merit.
Special ground 2 assigns error in that the court erred in charging the provisions of Code § 61-111 as follows: “I charge you that if the landlord fails to keep a building in repair, and if you find from the evidence that water seeped in the building, and as the result of such water the building became untenable, that would amount to a constructive eviction, and the defendant *479would not be liable for the balance of the rent after he moved out of the building.” The court did not err in so charging, for the same reason as given regarding special ground 1.
Special ground 3 assigns error because the court failed to charge, without a request, Code § 85-801 as follows: “An estate for years is one which is limited in its duration to a period fixed or which may be made fixed and certain. If it is in lands, it passes as realty. It may be for any number of years, provided the limitation is within the rule against perpetuities.” Since the relationship of landlord and tenant was involved, there being no agreement in the contract as to who should do the repairs, such duty fell on the lessor, and this failure to charge was not erroneous.
Special ground 4 assigns error in that the court failed to charge as follows: “A tenant for years is bound for all repairs or other expense necessary for the preservation and protection of the property.” Under the evidence such failure to charge was not reversible error.
Special ground 5 assigns error because it is alleged that the court erred in charging that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiff. Special ground 6 assigns error because it is alleged that the court erred in failing to charge, without a request, as to the burden of proof resting on the defendant. Under the facts of this case, these grounds show no reversible error in view of the whole charge of the court. The following cases cited by counsel for the defense are not applicable to the instant case because the pleadings and facts are different in those cases from the instant case: Whitley v. Wilson, 90 Ga. App. 16, 17 (81 S. E. 2d 877); Jones v. Love, 67 Ga. App. 594, 596 (21 S. E. 2d 254), and Williamson, Inman & Co. v. Thompson, 53 Ga. App. 821, 827 (187 S. E. 194). These special grounds are not meritorious.
Special ground 7 assigns error because the court admitted certain evidence into the record over objections. 'The following question was asked the plaintiff: “Now, don’t you know that the reason he failed to pay, and refused to pay the rent was because you wouldn’t repair the building?” It is alleged that the answer of the defendant did not cover the matter of the repairs to the building and that the evidence regarding repairs would give *480the defendant the benefit of an affirmative defense not pleaded and not adjusted to the pleadings or to the lease in controversy. The trial court properly ruled that the evidence went to a general denial, and did not have to be specially pleaded. This ground is not meritorious.
Special ground 8 assigns error because the court excluded certain evidence, over objections, as to the cost of remodeling the building before the defendant moved in. Such exclusion was not harmful to the plaintiff because there was other evidence which covered the condition of the building when the defendant moved in, and the change in the street level, which was a causative factor in the water seepage. This special ground shows no cause for reversal.
The court did not err in any of the rulings.

Judgment affirmed.

Carlisle, J., concurs. Townsend, J., concurs specially.