Inabnett v. Pruett

• Decision Date: 18 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. 11293,11293
• Citation: 229 So.2d 150
• Parties: J. L. INABNETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. PRUETT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 150

229 So.2d 150

J. L. INABNETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. PRUETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11293.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1969.

Paul Henry Kidd, Ruston, for defendant-appellant.

Campbell, Campbell, Marvin & Johnson, by Charles A. Marvin, Minden, Carroll G. Jones, Ruston, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, DIXON, and WILLIAMS, JJ.

AYRES, Judge.

This is an action by lessor against his lessee for rent allegedly due for the remainder of the term of a lease under an acceleration clause. There was judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed.

The premises consist of a lower floor of a two-story building of concrete-block construction. The use of the building was restricted to the operation of an electrical contractor and motor-rewinding business. The upper floor consisted of rooms or apartments generally rented to and occupied by students at Louisiana Polytechnic Institute. The term of the lease was for a period of five years beginning November 1, 1965, at a price of $100 per month, payable in advance. The lease provided that 'failure to pay any one monthly installment when due shall cause all remaining unpaid installments to become due and payable at the option of the holder of said lease.' Lessee's having removed from and vacated the premises on or about September 30, 1968, pursuant to prior notice to lessor that he would consider the lease terminated as of that date, and having failed to pay the rent for the month of October, 1968, this action was instituted November 19, 1968.

The defense is that the lease was terminated by lessor's failure to maintain the premises in a condition fit for its normal use. The clause in the lease relied upon provided:

'In the event that the leased building shall be destroyed or so substantially damaged as to prevent normal use thereof by Lessee, by fire, lightning, tornado or otherwise, this lease shall terminate unless Lessor shall promptly begin the reerecting and with due diligence complete the reerection thereof in substantially the same manner as it now exists. All rentals agreed to be paid hereunder shall abate for the period beginning with such destruction or damage and until the same shall be restored as hereinabove provided.'

After inspecting the property, defendant entered into the lease contract and moved into the premises which had theretofore served as a warehouse. A portion was selected by defendant for office space which he, at his own expense, paneled and walled off for that purpose.

The first complaint of the lessee related to the gas service at the time he moved into the premises. A test made before turning the gas on disclosed a leak somewhere in the building. Plaintiff, on notice, sent workmen to make the necessary repairs. Their effort was unsuccessful. However, defendant employed a plumber to make the necessary repairs, which were satisfactorily done. Charges therefor were deducted by lessee from the rent.

No other complaints of consequence were made until December, 1967, when a commode in an apartment overflowed, and water ran through the ceiling onto the ground floor. The water was turned off. Within a few days the situation was corrected by the lessor's making the necessary repairs or replacements.

Complaints with reference to water coming through open windows, above, or seeping through the walls were made in the spring of 1968, during the course of exceedingly heavy rains. The roof was good; no leaks existed there. Whatever carelessness existed on the part of the occupants of the apartments...