View report page

145
house—Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. cap. 102,
sec. 3)—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42
Yict. cap. 26), sec. 5.
The landlord of a house occupied and resided in a set of rooms in the house,
and let the rest of the rooms to weekly tenants, each tenant having the
exclusive use of the room or rooms let to him and a right to such use of
the staircases and passages as was necessary for ingress and egress. Each
tenant had a key of the front door. There was also let to the tenants the
use in common of the courtyard, w.c., and washhouse. The cleansing of
the passages and staircases was shared in common by those using the
same. The house was rated as a whole in the name of the landlord, and
he was under a covenant with the owner to keep the premises in repair.
The Revising Barrister found that the landlord had no right of control or
dominion over the rooms let or over the parts of the house used in
common, his use of and right of control over the parts used in common
being identical with those of his tenants; and that he did not reserve to
himself or exercise any right of general control or dominion or mastership
over the premises.
Held, by the Court of Appeal, that upon the facts found by the Revising
Barrister the tenant of a room in the house was an inhabitant occupier
of a dwelling-house, and not a lodger, and was entitled to have his name
placed upon Division 1 of the Occupiers' List of Voters.
Where rooms in a house are let out as separate dwelling houses, the fact that
the landlord resides upon the premises does not of itself make the
occupiers of the rooms lodgers. The question whether or not they are
lodgers depends upon whether the landlord retains a right of control
over the rooms let to them.
McLaughlin v. Chambers (1896), 2 I.R. 497, approved.
Decision of the King's Bench Division reversed.
(J. P. December 16, 1905.)
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Mr. Justice Walton).
London County Council (Appellants) v. Cook (Respondent).
Inhabited House Duty.—Common Lodging House.— The Revenue Act, 1903,
section 11.
This was a case stated by the Commissioners for the General Purposes of
the Income Tax, and raised the question as to whether lodging houses erected
by the appellants under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, were
exempt from inhabited house duty.