Rosenkranz v. Pellin

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal by defendant O. H. Pellín from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action of unlawful detainer.

On February 28, 1947, the Bieks and Lassars were the owners of three parcels of real property in Los Angeles. The property was unimproved except for a two-story house on one of the lots. On that date they executed a written lease of the property to Rosner for three years. The lease contained a provision by which the lessors reserved the right to cancel the lease at any time during its term, “If all or any portion of this property is sold or if a major building is to be erected on any portion of said property, the Lessors may, on giving the Lessee sixty (60) days notice in writing cancel this lease, and the Lessee will vacate said premises within sixty (60) -from date of such notice and release the Lessors from all obligation under the terms of this lease.” Rosner took possession.

On September 17, 1947, the lessee, with the approval of the lessors, assigned his interest in the lease to appellant Pellín, who, in writing, assumed the lease and agreed to be bound by its terms.

On October 21, 1948, Pellín sublet the property to Von Benzonheim. Prior to subletting, Pellín had purchased the two-story house on the property. After the subletting, he continued to own and maintain the building on the property.

On January 26,1949, plaintiffs purchased the real property but not the building. On that date the original lessors and plaintiffs gave notice in writing to Pellín cancelling the lease as of March 31, 1949, and demanded possession on that date. Pellín did not remove the building from the property and Von Benzonheim did not vacate the premises, hence this action.

The court found that during April, 1949, Von Benzonheim was in possession, and that Pellín was in possession as assignee of the lease and, in addition, as the owner of the building maintained by him on the property, and that the reasonable

[652]

rental value of the property was $500 a month. Judgment was for possession of the property, $500 damages, and $150 attorney’s fees.

.Appellant claims that: (1) there is no competent evidence to support the finding that Pellín was in possession during the month of April, 1949; (2) there is no competent evidence to support the finding that the reasonable rental value of the property was $500 a month; (3) there was no privity of contract between plaintiffs and Pellín warranting the award of attorney’s fees; (4) the superior court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action.