Plaintiff landlord filed an action for the recovery of rental claimed to be due for the use of real property against defendant tenant in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California). The trial court gave judgment for the landlord, and both parties appealed, the tenant contending that it was not liable in any amount, and the landlord complaining that the amount of the rental awarded was inadequate.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. offers counsel for CRC 3.1200
Overview
The tenant occupied the leased premises under an amendatory lease, which provided for the payment as rental of a percentage of the gross income of the tenant’s business, with a monthly minimum. Two months and four days prior to the expiration of the lease, the tenant moved its business to another location and paid the minimum rental for the full term of the lease. The landlord sought to recover the percentage rental that it claimed it would have received if the tenant had remained in business on the premises until the expiration of the lease. The court held that there was nothing to support the conclusion that there was an implied covenant requiring the tenant to remain in business in the demised premises until the expiration of the term. Nor was there anything in the nature of the transaction to justify a finding that an implied covenant was indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties, nor could it have been supported on the grounds of legal necessity. The amount paid and received was a full settlement of the rent due for the term of the lease.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment with directions to re-enter the same in favor of the tenant.
