W Bowes v R W Arro. The Decision

Yesterday's writing was the interesting legal action brought by Mr Walter Bowes of Hull against his Landlord, Mr R W Arro. 

The crux of the matter was that the Luftwaffe had, in the July of 1943, dropped a bomb sufficiently close to the house that Walter, aged 81, had occupied for the previous 43 years. It was damaged and poor Walter could not live there in its unrepaired state. 

Thinking that the prospect of the Hull Corporation doing the required remedial work was remote in that austere time of war, Walter agreed to surrender his longstanding Protected Tenancy and seek somewhere else to live out his senior years. 

Part of the agreement with the Landlord was that Walter could continue to use the garden where he had lavished time and effort on his fruit, vegetables and flowers. The impending harvest of the produce in the approaching September would mark the end of his residential status. 

The Landlord, understandably, sought to make the unoccupied house secure and locked and bolted the doors and windows. 

However, on his daily visits Walter found out that the Hull Corporation Architect had drawn up a schedule of repairs and so back-tracked on the agreement by claiming that he was still the tenant. 

His denial of access by the actions of the Landlord and even the summoning of the Police when he was leaving the garden carrying some of his produce caused an aggrieved Walter to take Mr Arro to Court. 

My writing of yesterday only covered the initial stages of the County Court Hearing. 

Respective Legal Counsel for the two Parties made argument and counter argument in front of the presiding Judge Griffith and, to be honest, the case seemed to be very finely balanced. 

I have managed to track down the final Judgement which was delivered by Judge Griffith in the January of 1944. 

In his reasoning the Judge considered the validity of the Agreement to Terminate the Tenancy which had been made in July 1943. He felt there was no justification to rescind this. The Counsel for Walter had highlighted Case Law involving protection for tenants under the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act. 

After considering all representations and the special circumstances of the case which the Judge acknowledged had been something "that Hitler had done" he stated that Walter should not be bound by the Agreement and that he was still the legal tenant and entitled to retain possession under the terms and conditions as originally granted in the Tenancy that he had taken out in or around the year 1900. 

Walter was awarded Damages of £5 for the trespass and unlawful entry of the Landlord. 

This figure was nominal in that the garden produce was largely intact and Walter would be the beneficiary of it. 

The Case did represent a landmark judgement for tenants affected by enemy action in those dark wartime years.