KRINGAS & ANOTHER V. TERRILL & OTHERS

0.12980/45

HR, Dew, Gor. Print, Melb

"+ on_Friday,.29th November, 1946.

Judgment, delivered at... Sydney...

ws

ON Me IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

bs

ORAL REASONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUS New south Wales Regietrf }

QORAM + LATHAM, C.J KRINGAS and ANOTHER RICH J. SPARKE J, ve DIXON J, MeTIERNAN J, TERRILL and OTHERS SUDHRL. 29th HOVEMBER. 19156 Pins ey

LATHAM 0.3, + We are of opinion that this appeal should be aiemiased. I put my judgment upon the ground that the evidence shows a tenancy by estoppal between the occu- pants of the room in question in Grace Building and the Conmonwealth, There is a payment of rent as rent to persons who, in fact, were agents of the Commonwealth. The money was received as rent and receipts were given for it expressly as rent. There are accordingly, in my Opinion, all the elements of a tenancy by sstoppal. It may also he that under Section 22A of the landlord and Tenant Act there is the evidence which is sufficient to establish the presumptions whioh are referred toe I, however, consider it sufficient to base my conclusion upon the ground which I. have stateds

It is suggested that there is some impropriety or Sllegality or legal impossibility in the Commonwealth beeseming a landlerd of land which has been compulsorily acquired under the Lands Acquisition Aot and which is not immediatley required forutilisation for a public purpose IT can see no authority for that propositions

The practioal difficulty which hae been suggested in relation to the time limitation placed upon the warrant issued under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act does not appear to mechere to require any especial consideration by the Court. Apart from the proceedings in the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 59 of the Lands Acquisition Act would appear to form a speedy method of dealing with the Gabe,