Welk v. Bidwell

• Decision Date: 25 April 1950
• Citation: 136 Conn. 603,73 A.2d 295
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WELK v. BIDWELL. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 295

73 A.2d 295

136 Conn. 603

WELK v. BIDWELL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 25, 1950.

Samuel Steinberg, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Walter F. Foley, Hartford, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff).

Philip Bayer, Manchester, for appellant-appellee (defendant).

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.

INGLIS, Judge.

The question raised by the plaintiff's appeal in this action is whether in the case of a month-to-month tenancy the tenant, by holding over after the landlord has notified him of an increase of rent, becomes obligated to pay that increase in spite of his protest. On the defendant's appeal the questions are, first, whether the trial court erred in concluding that there had been no constructive eviction by the landlord and, second, whether the court erred in concluding that the plaintiff was not liable to the defendant for damage to the defendant's personal property stored in the rented premises.

The facts found may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff was the owner of a farm in Glastonbury upon which stood a tobacco barn. The defendant owned and occupied property directly across the highway and was engaged not only in farming but also in the sale and exchange of new and used farm machinery and equipment. In January, 1946, the defendant leased from the plaintiff his entire tobacco barn, with the stipulation that the defendant should have the 'right of way thereto and entry guaranteed to premises,' on a month-to-month basis for a monthly rental of $10. Thereafter, the defendant stored in the barn a large quantity of farm machinery, tractors, grain, small tools and other items and, to protect that property, he put hasps and padlocks on the barn doors.

About May 1, 1946, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he should either remove his property or thereafter pay $125 per month rent. The defendant refused to pay such a sum, saying that it was an outrageous price. Thereafter, the defendant continued to occupy the premises and periodically tendered to the plaintiff the rent at the rate of $10 per month. He has at no time either expressly or impliedly agreed to pay $125 per month rent but, on the contrary, has at all times claimed the right of occupancy at the rate of $10 per month.

In March, 1947, the plaintiff nailed up the barn doors, attached padlocks of his own to the hasps upon which the defendant had his locks and strung a cable across the driveway so that vehicular access to the barn was cut off. Thereafter, the defendant gained access to the barn by crawling through a small door and in that way removed small tools from, and placed other small tools in, the barn. He at no time claimed that he had been constructively evicted from the property, nor did he take any legal measures to reclaim his goods. During the period in question the roof of the barn became leaky and, as a result, some damage was caused to the equipment stored in the building, but the amount of that damage was not proved.

The trial court concluded that there had been no constructive eviction of the defendant and that he was liable to the plaintiff for rent at the rate of $10 per month from May 1, 1946, to the date of trial, a total of thirty-six months. On the defendant's counterclaim it was decided that the plaintiff was not liable for any damage to the defendant's goods.

On the question whether a landlord by giving notice to his tenant before the expiration of the term of the lease that if the latter continues in possession of the leased property after the expiration of his term he must pay an increased rent, may obligate the tenant to do so even though the tenant refuses to acquiesce in the increase, there is a sharp conflict in the authorities. About half of the jurisdictions in which the question has been passed upon hold that he may and the other half hold that he may not. 32 Am.Jur. 800; note, 109 A.L.R. 197, 203, 205. The reasoning by which some of the courts reach the conclusion that the tenant becomes bound to pay the increased rent is, in substance, that a tenant has no right to occupy the property except upon the terms fixed by the landlord and if those terms are not acceptable the tenant is free to vacate. Abraham v. Gheens, 205 Ky. 289, 292, 265 S.W. 778, 40 A.L.R. 186. The answer to that line of reasoning is that, where, as in this state, provision is made for the ousting of a tenant by summary process on the expiration of a lease, the landlord is as free to oust the tenant as the tenant is to vacate, if the terms upon which the tenant proposes to hold over are not acceptable to the landlord.

The crux of the matter lies in the fact that a lease is a contract. In the case of a rental on a month-to-month basis the tenancy is not regarded as a continuous one. The tenancy for each month is one separate from that of every other month. Corrigan v. Antupit, 131 Conn. 71, 76, 37 A.2d 697; Chipman v. National Savings Bank, 128 Conn. 493, 497, 23 A.2d 922; Williams v. Apothecaries Hall Co., 80 Conn. 503, 506, 69 A. 12. For each month, therefore, there must be a new contract of leasing. Where there has been no meeting of the minds there is no contract. If a landlord insists on one rate of rental and the tenant insists on another, there is no meeting of the minds.

Our statute, General Statutes, § 7106, provides: 'No holding over by any lessee, after the expiration of the term of his lease, shall be evidence of any agreement for a further lease * * *.' The fact that the defendant in this case held over in possession of the property after the expiration of his lease for the month of April, 1946, did not in itself create a lease for the subsequent month. The parties were free to make a contract for the future occupancy of the property. If there had been no dispute between them as to the terms of the future occupancy, the holding over by the tenant and the acquiescence therein by the landlord would have raised such a contract by implication. Williams v. Apothecaries Hall Co., supra; Byxbee v. Blake, 74 Conn. 607, 610, 51 A. 535, 57 L.R.A. 222. Indeed, if the landlord had specified terms for the future occupancy of the property, the continuance in possession by the tenant without objection by him to those terms might have been construed as an acceptance of those terms and thus a contract would have been implied from the conduct of the parties. Maltby, Inc., v. Associated Realty Co., 114 Conn. 283, 288, 158 A. 548; Margolis v. Wise, 91 Conn. 152, 156, 99 A. 511. But if there had actually been no meeting of the minds either because of ambiguity or uncertainty in negotiations or because the negotiations had not been completed, then, of course, there could have been no contract. Shulman v. Hartford Public Library, 119 Conn. 428, 432, 177 A. 269; Margolis v. Wise, supra. If a tenant remains in possession without the consent of the landlord, there is no contract for an extended term to be implied from the holding over. City Coal Co. v. Marcus, 95 Conn. 454, 465, 111 A. 857. A fortiori where the parties are in definite dispute as to any of the essential terms of a new tenancy, certainly no lease can be implied from the fact that the tenant holds over.

It is clear that the plaintiff could not, by merely giving notice to the defendant that he should either remove his property from the premises or thereafter pay $125 a month rent, impose upon the defendant a lease for the ensuing months at that rental. The defendant's flat refusal to agree to pay that rent left the parties without any contract with reference to the occupancy of the property. The question, therefore, arises as to what was the nature of the defendant's tenancy after May 1, 1946. He was not a...