Hannan v. Dusch

Facts

Dusch leased real estate in the city of Norfolk, Virginia, to Hannan on August 31, 1927. The lease ran for fifteen years, with the term to begin January 1, 1928, at a specified rental. A term that long can be created in Virginia only by deed, so the lease was made by deed. It had no express covenant (a promise stated in the lease) about delivering the premises or about the tenant's quiet possession. Hannan alleged that he was ready and willing to take possession on January 1, 1928, and told Dusch so. But a tenant or tenants occupied part of the property, and Hannan did not get possession that day or later. Hannan alleged that Dusch failed and refused to put him in possession, let the occupying tenants stay, and refused to take legal or other action to oust them. He sued for the damages caused by this alleged breach. The court treated the occupier as a former tenant who wrongfully holds over, meaning one who stays on after his own term has ended. The opinion says Hannan had a summary remedy under Virginia's unlawful detainer statute, and that his failure to use it was not explained.

Issues

1. Does a landlord who leases property without an express covenant about delivering possession impliedly promise to oust a former tenant wrongfully holding over, so the premises are open for entry when the new term begins?
2. If the landlord makes no such promise, must the new tenant look to the wrongdoer and to the remedy the unlawful detainer statute gives, rather than to the landlord, for the loss of possession?

Holding

Where a lease has no express covenant to deliver possession, the landlord is not required to oust a former tenant who wrongfully holds over. Hannan's remedy was against the holdover tenant, including the summary statutory remedy, not against Dusch, and the judgment was affirmed.