Page: 707 ↓
Loud Young —I am of the same opinion. Of course I do not think that the letter of 4th April can be regarded as an assent by the tenant to the new terms. But I regard the letter of 30th March as specifying the conditions upon which the landlords were willing to keep the defender on as tenant. If he was not willing to agree to these conditions then he had notice to quit. The letter of 4th April does not assent to these terms, but the tenant subsequently agreed to them by staying on. It was not open to him to remain on without agreeing to the new terms. He could only stay on upon the terms mentioned in the letter of 30th March. If an action of removing had been brought by the landlords, the tenant's answer would have been that he was entitled to retain possession, because by staying on he had assented to the new terms proposed by the landlords. Tacit relocation is out of this case. The parties were not tacit. They made a new agreement. I am very far from thinking that there may not be tacit relocation although there have been meetings and conversations and even letters passing between the parties. But here the tenant must be held to have assented to the new terms intimated by the landlords.
Lord Trayner —I am of the same opinion. Tacit relocation is out of the case, because on 30th March the landlords' agents intimated that the tenant was not to be allowed to remain in his premises upon the former terms. In reply the tenant's agent wrote saying that he would not agree to the new conditions. But the landlords were entitled to impose what conditions they pleased. All that the tenant's letter came to was, that if these were the only conditions upon which he was to be allowed to stay, he would rather go, as he would not agree to them. But in fact he did not go—he stayed on. That was virtually a departure from his letter. He remained in the premises, and by doing so he must be held to have acquiesced in the letter of 30th March, and to be bound now to fulfil its conditions.
Lord Moncreiff — I am of the same opinion. Tacit relocation is out of the case here. At first I had some difficulty in spelling out of these letters an agreement on the part of the tenant to pay the increased rent, £110. The letter. of 30th March stated the terms upon which the landlords were willing to continue the tenancy. On 4th April the tenant's agent wrote refusing to assent to these terms. If that letter had not been replied to on behalf of the landlords, I should have had difficulty in holding that the tenant impliedly agreed to pay the increased rent. But on 5th April the landlords' agents wrote a letter in which they intimated distinctly that the letter of 30th March contained the conditions upon which alone the tenant would be allowed to occupy the premises for another year. The tenant did not answer that letter and repudiate the terms named, and continued to occupy the premises. What is the fair inference ? I think that the reasonable inference is that he agreed to the landlords' terms, and that he is now bound by them.
The Court dismissed the appeal, and of new decerned against the defender for payment of £55, with interest at 5 per cent, per annum from Martinmas 1899 till payment, with expenses.
Counsel for the Pursuers— Jameson, Q.C. — A. S. D. Thomson. Agents — George Inglis & Orr, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender — Hamilton. Agents— Clark & Macdonald, S.S.C.