Partial delivery of leased premises may justify apportionment of rent, not automatic suspension of the entire rent.

A tenant deprived of possession of only part of the leased premises is not automatically entitled to suspend rent altogether; the proper relief depends on the facts, including how much of the premises remains enjoyed. Where partial possession has been delivered, rent relief may instead take the form of apportionment, with the payable amount determined according to the portion actually occupied. The Court rejected a rigid rule of total rent suspension and treated the matter as requiring evidence on proportionate rent. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the rent attributable to the part of the premises retained by the tenant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant deprived of possession of part of the demised premises is entitled to suspend payment of rent altogether. (ii) Whether, in such a case, the proper relief is apportionment of rent and remand for determination of the proportionate rent payable.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant deprived of possession of part of the demised premises is entitled to suspend payment of rent altogether.

Analysis: The rule that rent may be suspended in every case of partial non-delivery of possession was held to be too inflexible. The correct approach depends on the circumstances of each case. Where the tenant enjoys a substantial portion of the premises, complete suspension of rent may be inequitable, while in other cases a tenant deprived of a substantial part may not be required to pay the full rent.

Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to suspend rent altogether on the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether, in such a case, the proper relief is apportionment of rent and remand for determination of the proportionate rent payable.

Analysis: Since possession of part of the premises had been delivered, the tenant could be liable only for a proportionate part of the rent. The High Court adopted a technical approach in refusing to consider apportionment. The proper course was to remand the matter so that evidence could be taken and the rent attributable to the portion actually enjoyed by the tenant could be calculated.

Conclusion: The case should be remanded for determination of proportionate rent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the earlier orders were set aside, and the suit was remitted to the Court of Small Causes for fresh disposal on the question of apportionment of rent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tenant is put in possession of only part of the leased premises, entitlement to rent relief depends on the facts of the case, and complete suspension of rent is not automatic; the appropriate remedy may instead be apportionment of rent.

---