In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld a landlord's appeal against a High Court order that had set aside an eviction decree. The landlord owned a house let to a textile firm that fell into arrears. When the firm vacated, one of its former employees (defendant No. 1) remained in occupation. The landlord sued for arrears and eviction against both the firm and the employee. The trial court dismissed the case against the employee as a trespasser; the appellate court reversed, decreeing eviction against all defendants; the High Court reversed again. The Supreme Court held that because defendant No. 1 was the firm's employee claiming through the tenant-firm, he was bound by the eviction decree and could be dispossessed without a separate civil suit. Only the tenant is a necessary party in rent proceedings; persons claiming through the tenant are not.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.