The word ‘person’ in the Act, was interpreted to mean ‘landlord’. When dealing with a penal section, if there are two reasonably possible meanings, the court should adopt the more lenient one: ‘where an equivocal word or ambiguous sentence leaves a reasonable doubt of its meaning which the canons of interpretation fail to solve, the … Continue reading Remmington v Larchin: CA 1921
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply. Held: The 1977 Act applied. A tenancy for mixed purposes falls under the protection of the Act of 1954, … Continue reading Pirabakaran v Patel and Another: CA 26 May 2006
A long lease at a premium and a low rent comprised three rooms at the top of a building. Clause 7 provided that the landlord should be entitled to buy the residue of the lease for andpound;2,500 if either the tenant gave notice to the landlord that he wished to vacate the premises or the … Continue reading Re Hennessey: 1975
The words in section 38(1) ‘purports to’ means ‘has the effect that’ so that an agreement to give up possession in two years when the lease would still have six years to run infringed section 38 as it would preclude an application or request for a new tenancy even though an actual surrender was permitted … Continue reading Joseph v Joseph: CA 1967
A business lease provided that if the tenant wished to assign, he must first offer a surrender to the landlord for the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept, then he could apply for consent to assign, such consent not to be unreasonably . .
