This is an appeal by the insurer from a decree of the Superior Court awarding compensation to the claimant in accordance with a decision of the reviewing board. The reviewing board adopted the findings of the single member and made a further finding "that the employee sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on March 23, 1961, when she struck her leg against a flat truck." We cannot say that this conclusion was unwarranted by the evidence. There was no error of law. Our decisions are replete with citations covering the issues involved in this case and therefore no further comment is needed. Costs and expenses of this appeal under G. L. c. 152, Section 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

Decree affirmed.

It was error to deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in this action of tort by a tenant to recover from the landlord for injuries sustained in a fall caused by a hole in the linoleum on the kitchen floor of the leased apartment. The reservation of the right to enter "the tenant's premises" to make repairs, additions or alterations "for the preservation thereof or of the building" and the tenant's agreement to make no repairs without the written consent of the management did not put the lessor in control of the premises (Stone v. Sullivan, 300 Mass. 450, 454) nor impose on the lessor a duty to repair. Ryan v. Boston Housing Authy. 322 Mass. 299, 301-302.

Page 771

The restriction that "[n]o tacks, nails or other fasteners or cement shall be used in laying carpets, rugs or linoleum on the floors of the tenant's dwelling" does not alter the application of the rules of these cases. Nothing is stated with respect to the linoleum other than that it was "owned by the defendant," and on November 1, 1962, there was a hole in it three inches in diameter of which the defendant had had notice for at least six weeks. Assuming, with the plaintiff, that the term began August 1, 1960, when the parties executed a lease for thirty days with a provision for automatic renewal for successive thirty day periods (see Gibbs Realty & Inv. Corp. v. Carvel Stores Realty Corp. 351 Mass. 684), the bill of exceptions, even so, shows no breach of duty and no negligent conduct by the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.