Citation Numbers: 89 Pa. Super. 572
Judges: OPINION BY KELLER, J., March 3, 1927:
Filed Date: 11/10/1926
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued November 10, 1926. This case came into the court below as an appeal from the judgment of a magistrate in dispossession proceedings brought by a landlord against its tenants.
The defendants were in possession of the property under a verbal lease made prior to the date when the plaintiff became the owner.
The main question of fact to be determined by the jury was whether the lease was from month to month, as asserted by the plaintiff, or from year to year, as claimed by the defendants. The jury agreed with the plaintiff, and as there was evidence to support the finding it will not be disturbed.
Subordinate questions which arose were: (1) If the tenancy was from month to month, on what day of the month did the term end? (2) Was there evidence of a certain rent reserved? (3) Was there sufficient evidence of notice to deliver up possession, in accordance with the Act of March 31, 1905, P.L. 87?
(1) While the proof was not voluminous on the subject, we think there was some evidence to support a finding that the monthly letting ended on the 26th of the month. The defendants averred that their tenancy began on that day of the month and the last five receipts for rent from the former landlord, now deceased, offered by them in evidence, showed that the rent was payable inadvance on the 27th of the month, which would fix the, 26th as the end of the monthly term: Adams v. Dunn,
(2) The plaintiff proved by admissions of James DeWindt, one of the defendants, that the rental was $45 per month, but that they paid only $30 a month in cash, because they had made certain repairs to the property and the landlord had allowed a credit of $15 a month on account of such repairs until defendants were reimbursed for their outlay, which period expired in October, 1923. This was enough. Sometime after this period had ended the succeeding landlord demanded $40 per month. Defendants are not in a position to object because the landlord reduced the rental.
(3) Plaintiff offered in evidence the notice to quit annexed as an exhibit to the statement of claim and asked that it be noted on the record that service of the notice on the defendants as averred in paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's statement had not been denied in the affidavit of defense; which was done without objection on the part of defendants. We think this was a substantial compliance with the rule enunciated in Buehler v. U.S. Fashion Plate Co.,
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.