Is St Cyr liable for the damage caused by the fire?

Even if the section were applicable to this case it is questionable if St. Cyr would be liable for the damage caused by the fire. As stated by Aitken L.J. in Berton v. Alliance Econ. Invt. Co., [1922] 1 K.B. 742 at 759 (C.A.): It is not suggested that there is any difference between the words “permit” and “suffer” in this context, and I treat them as having the same meaning. It is clear that a person under a covenant not to use premises in a particular way cannot commit a breach of the covenant except by his own act or that of his agent. The same is true of a covenant not to permit. The user in one case and the permission in the other must be something which can be predicated of the defendant or the defendant’s agent. It is not sufficient to show that the premises have been used in a way which would constitute a breach of the covenant; it must further be shown that the use is by the defendant or his agent, or that it is permitted by the defendant or his agent.