Weighley v. Muller

Citations

• 51 Pa. Super. 125
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 190

Syllabus

<p>Landlord, and tenant — Eviction—Improper acts of landlord — Evidence ■ — Damages for wrongful eviction.</p> <p>1. Under the modem authorities a constructive eviction is sufficient to destroy the relation of landlord and tenant.</p> <p>2. The term “eviction” is no longer restricted in its application to its original meaning of eviction by title paramount, or to a total deprivation of the premises by the landlord; any act of the landlord which deprives his tenant of that beneficial enjoyment of the premises to which he is entitled under the lease, will amount in law to an eviction.</p> <p>3. Where a tenant is charged by his landlord with dishonesty without cause, assaulted and beaten in the presence of his family, ordered from the premises, forbidden to return, threatened with imprisonment, and an outbuilding in which he kept his 'provisions is seized and forcibly locked up by the landlord for some time, the tenant may claim a 'wrongful eviction, and upon his withdrawal from the premises may maintain an action against the landlord to recover the pecuniary interest under the lease of which he was deprived; and he may maintain this action-before the end of the term specified in the lease, inasmuch as his right of action is complete and accrues at once whether the eviction was actual or constructive.</p> <p>4. In such a case the tenant’s right of action is not defeated by the fact that on the last day on which he was assaulted he notified the landlord in writing that at the end of the current month he would surrender the premises in compliance with the landlord’s demand. Such an act of the tenant was superfluous, but it could not mislead the landlord, and it could not be construed as a waiver of any of the tenant’s rights.</p>