EVICTION OF TENANT. 437 



tenant holding iq^on the terms of an agreement for a lease was formei'ly 

 considered to be merely a tenant-at-will, but the Courts have since held 

 that if rent is paid a tenancy from year to year shall be presumed/ 

 Leave was given to amend the declaration within three weeks, by strik- 

 ing out so much of it as related to the two-years' notice to quit, on pay- 

 ment of costs^ otherwise the rule to be discharged. 



In a plaint in the County Court for tlic recovery of prenmes Inj a lamh 

 loi-d against his tenant, the Court is not, under stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, 

 s. 58, necessarily deprived of its jurisdiction, by the judge being satisfied 

 from the evidcuce that there is a bond fide claim of title to the premises 

 by a third person, who has not only given notice to his tenant not to 

 })ay rent, but who has succeeded in obtaining possession from him. It 

 is the duty of the jndge, before he declines to try such cause, to ascer- 

 tain whether the person so claiming title has obtained possession under 

 circumstances which would amount to an action by title paramount ; for 

 if the tenant voluntarily gave up the premises, the cause could have been 

 tried without the judge having to determine any question of title {Emery 

 V. Barnett). 



To constitute an eviction of a tenant Inj his landlord, ichich will operate 

 as a suspension of rent, it is not necessary that there should be an actual 

 physical expulsion from any part of the premises ; but any act of a per- 

 manent character done by the landlord, or by his procurement, with the 

 intention to deprive the tenant of the enjoyment of the premises as 

 demised, or any part of them, will operate as such eviction, and the 

 existence of the intention is a question for the jury ( UiJton v. Greenless, and 

 Upton V. Tomiend). Payment ly a tenant of rent to a p)erson other than 

 the person who let him into possession, under a threat of expulsion, does 

 not amount to a constructive eviction, so as to affect the estoppel ; and 

 semhle, that there cannot be a constructive eviction for that purpose 

 {Delaney v. Fox), 



It is no answer to a declaration in covenant ly a landlord against a 

 tenant for not repairing, converting meadow-land into tillage, de2K(sturing 

 orchards ivith other than specified cattle, cutting trees, and underletting part 

 of demised p)remises ivithout his consent, that before any of the alleged 

 breaches, and during the continuance of the term, he was evicted from 

 an outhouse, garden, and court-yard, parcel of the demised premises, by 

 authority of the landlord {Newton v. Allin). And 7;er Curiam: "The 

 tenant can never be allowed to say that he is no tenant, because he has 

 been evicted at the very moment when he is underletting the land which 

 he has been put in possession of by the landlord, in direct contravention 

 of the covenants that he has entered into, the breach of which is admitted 

 upon the record" {ih.). And where lauds have been demised until 



