DocketNumber: No. 35,226
Citation Numbers: 232 Minn. 183
Judges: Magney
Filed Date: 11/17/1950
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
Appeal from judgment for restitution in an unlawful detainer action.
“* * * it jg further agreed that Vendors be allowed to remain in building for a period of one year from December 31, 1948, at an increase of 15 per cent over the present figure set by O.P.A. Should Vendee desire apartment now occupied by Vendors the said Vendors, agree to accept another apartment in above said building on the same terms of a 15 per cent increase. * * *
“It is understood that legal possession of the within described property is to be given Vendee not later than December 31st, 1948 * -2- * 3?
Rental for the apartment occupied by vendors was paid on the first day of each month. The year expired. Vendee gave vendors notice to vacate. They refused. An unlawful detainer action was brought, and vendee prevailed.
Whether the relationship between vendors and vendee became that of tenants and landlord, so as to make applicable the so-called Housing and Rent Act of 1949 (Chapter 42, Public Law 31, Laws of United States, 1949), 50 USCA Appendix, § 1884, et seq., together with Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Housing Expediter, is the legal problem presented in this appeal.
The trial court determined that the above-quoted portion of the earnest money contract did not create a landlord-and-tenant relationship and that therefore the Housing and Rent Act has no application. It is conceded that no attempt was made by vendee to comply with the provisions of the Housing and Rent Act in his effort to secure possession of the apartment which vendors continued to occupy. If the provisions of this act apply, it is clear that the trial court erred in its determination.
The trial court was of the opinion that the agreement to permit vendors to remain in possession for one year was an important part of the consideration which brought about the sale, and that
“4. The maximum rent for the housing accommodations is: $65.00 per month by 1 yr lease in sales contract” (Italics supplied.)
It is therefore apparent that both vendors and vendee considered their arrangement a lease of the apartment for a year, and that the relationship which existed between the parties was that of landlord and tenant. In our opinion, the conclusion is unescapable that
We are further confined in our opinion by a decision rendered on May 26, 1950, in the district court, fourth division, district of Minnesota, civil case No. 3299, in the case of United States v. Graf (respondent here). In that action, the court found that—
“C. E. Root and Viola B. Root [appellants here] acquired the status of ‘tenants’ by their occupancy of said housing accommodations and by the payment of ‘rent’ to the defendant [Graf] herein.”
The same premises and the same parties were involved in that case as here. The court there found that Graf had violated the provisions of the Housing and Rent Act and the eviction regulations. In addition to other restraints placed upon him, the court there enjoined and restrained Graf from.“In any manner seeking the eviction of the tenants, C. E. Root and Viola B. Root from [the premises here involved], under the judgment of the Municipal Court, city of Minneapolis, * * * by a writ of restitution, or otherwise; * *
Judgment reversed.