Is a tenant entitled to damages for being kept out of possession for much longer than the covenant of quiet enjoyment for quiet enjoyment?

While, in my opinion, the circumstance’s of this case shew that there was ho eviction, and therefore no suspension of the rent, yet under Budd-Scott v. Daniell it seems to me that a tenant under the circumstances of this case might possibly be entitled to damages for breach of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment, at least for being kept out of possession for a period much longer than the repairs were to take. As, however, there was no claim made in the pleadings for these damages, they cannot be given on this appeal, and it is therefore unnecessary that I should express any decided opinion on the point.