holding that a tenant whose lease terminates before condemnation suffers no deprivation of possession or beneficial use and suffers no injury compensable under the Code
How later courts described this case
- holding that a tenant whose lease terminates before condemnation suffers no deprivation of possession or beneficial use and suffers no injury compensable under the Code
- “When their lease expired, the plaintiffs no longer had any property interest in the premises, nor was there any interference with or deprivation of their possession or the beneficial use or enjoyment of their leasehold interests.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I find it unnecessary to decide whether under the Eminent Domain Code a tenant may recover dislocation damages if he is forced to move after the technical expiration date of his lease. I believe that since this entire transaction was achieved through private negotiation and sale, no question is presented under the Eminent Domain Code. Recovery under the Eminent Domain Code, by a tenant or otherwise, in my view is possible only after an eminent domain proceeding has been brought and where someone is a “condemnee.” Cf. Shippingport Ferry Company Appeal, 432 Pa. 176 , 247 A. 2d 466 (1968) (concurring opinion).