Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PITTSBURGH ALLIED FABRICATORS v. HABER ET AL. (11/12/70)

decided: November 12, 1970.

PITTSBURGH ALLIED FABRICATORS, INC.
v.
HABER ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1969, No. 2740, in case of Pittsburgh Allied Fabricators, Inc. v. Paul V. Haber et al.

COUNSEL

Homer W. King, with him Chris F. Gillotti, and King, Sabino & Gillotti, for appellants.

John A. Metz, Jr., with him Harry Eisenfeld, and Metz, Cook, Hanna & Kelly, for appellee.

Bell, C. J., Jones, Eagen, O'Brien and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien. Mr. Justice Cohen and Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: O'brien

[ 440 Pa. Page 546]

On January 24, 1964, the appellants, Paul V. Haber and John H. Haber, as landlords, entered into a lease with the appellee, Pittsburgh Allied Fabricators, Inc., for space on the first floor of a building to be erected by the appellants. The lease was for a five-year period commencing May 1, 1964, at a rental of $310 per month. Included in the lease was the following language: "Tenant shall have the option to renew this Lease for an additional

[ 440 Pa. Page 547]

    period of five (5) years from May 1, 1969 at the same rental subject, however, to adjustment for increase in taxes, water, sewage, and/or maintenance costs and under all the other terms and conditions herein set forth, providing notice in writing by Registered or Certified mail of its intention to exercise the option is given on or before February 1, 1969."

On December 30, 1968, the landlords notified the tenant that if it wished to renew the lease for an additional five-year term, the rental would be $708.32 per month, which amount reflected the increases in taxes, sewage and cost of maintenance for the premises. The tenant rejected the landlord's figures, but notified the landlords that it did intend to exercise the option on the lease.

Meetings and discussions were held between the parties. The tenant refused to accept the landlords' figure of $708.32 and the landlords refused the tenant's offer of $357.82 per month. The landlords then advised that inasmuch as no new lease had been entered into between the parties, the tenancy would end as of April 30, 1969.

The tenant brought an action in equity seeking to enjoin the landlords from evicting it, to enforce specifically what they alleged to be an option, and further requesting the court to determine the proper increase in rent for the renewal period of five years.

By an adjudication dated July 29, 1969, the chancellor determined that a valid option for a five-year renewal of the lease existed, that such an option had been exercised by the tenant-appellee and that the rental for the renewal period was to be fixed at $371.88 per month.

Exceptions to the adjudication were filed by the landlords-appellants and following argument before the court en banc, were dismissed and a final ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.