Adrian v. Rabinowitz
116 N.J.L. 586, 186 A. 29 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the absence of a contrary stipulation in the lease, a landlord has an implied covenant to deliver actual and exclusive possession of the leased premises to the tenant at the beginning of the term.
Facts:
- On April 30, 1934, the defendant-landlord leased store premises to the plaintiff-tenant for a six-month term set to begin on June 15, 1934.
- The plaintiff intended to use the property for a shoe business and paid the first month's rent upon signing the lease.
- At the time the lease was executed, the premises were occupied by another tenant.
- On June 15, 1934, the commencement date of the plaintiff's lease, the prior tenant wrongfully refused to vacate the premises.
- The defendant-landlord initiated and successfully prosecuted dispossess proceedings against the holdover tenant.
- The plaintiff was unable to take possession of the store until July 9, 1934, nearly a month after the lease term began.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff-lessee sued the defendant-landlord in the District Court for breach of the lease.
- The defendant filed a set-off claim for rent due.
- The trial court judge, sitting without a jury, found for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.
- The trial court awarded the plaintiff $500 in damages based on lost profits from the resale of merchandise and awarded the defendant $25 on her set-off.
- The defendant-landlord appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord have an implied duty to deliver actual possession of the premises to a new lessee at the commencement of the term, particularly when a prior tenant wrongfully holds over?
Opinions:
Majority - Heher, J.
Yes, a landlord has an implied duty to deliver actual possession. The court adopted the 'English Rule,' holding that every lease contains an implied covenant that the premises shall be open to the lessee's entry, both legally and actually, when the time for possession arrives. The court reasoned that this rule effectuates the common intention of the parties, as a lessee bargains for the use of the property, not a lawsuit against a holdover tenant. It is the landlord's responsibility to oust a wrongdoer who is in possession at the start of the term, as the landlord is better positioned to do so. The court distinguished this situation from one where a stranger trespasses after the tenant has already taken possession, which would be the tenant's responsibility. While the court affirmed the landlord's liability for breaching this duty, it reversed the trial court's award of damages based on speculative lost profits, holding that the proper measure of damages is the difference between the actual rental value and the rent reserved for the period of deprivation, unless special circumstances were communicated at the time of contracting and damages can be proven with certainty.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'English Rule' regarding the landlord's duty to deliver possession in New Jersey, resolving a split of authority seen in American jurisdictions. It provides greater protection for tenants by placing the burden of evicting a holdover tenant on the landlord, who is generally in a better position to handle the situation. The ruling clarifies that a lease is a contract for actual use and enjoyment, not merely for a legal claim to the property. It also reinforces the established standard for contract damages, distinguishing between general damages (difference in rental value) and special damages (lost profits), which require a higher standard of proof to avoid speculation.
Unlock the full brief for Adrian v. Rabinowitz