Landlords had let the property to their caretaker of the whole premises. andpound;40 was to be deducted from the agreed rental value of the house (andpound;66), and he was to pay andpound;26pa in rent. The parties agreed that the letting was governed by the Rent Restriction Acts. Later his wage was increased to andpound;66.00 leaving no rent payable.
Held: The tenant retained the advantage of having his tenancy protected under the Acts. The alteration created no new tenancy or discontinuance of the existing tenancy because no rent payment was now to be paid. Rent can be validly paid and taken in kind, taking, for example, the form of the supply of goods or services, as long as the parties have agreed a quantification of the value of kind in terms of money.
Denning LJ said that where rent was payable in kind, eg in goods or services, the value of which has by agreement been quantified in terms of mone, the sum so quantified is the rent of the house within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts, and if it exceeds two thirds of the rateable value, the house is within the Acts: ‘There is no reason to doubt that the consideration supplied was anything other than a proper one as between the parties and in the circumstances of this application I am unable to see why I should reject the consideration as not being the best reasonably obtainable.’
Judges:
Denning LJ
Citations:
[1954] 1 WLR 1039, [1954] 2 All ER 601, (1954) 98 Sol Jo 492
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vesely v Levy and others CA 27-Apr-2007
The tenant appealed against a finding that her tenancy was a statutory shorthold tenancy following termination of an assured shorthold tenancy, or an assured tenancy. She moved in as a carer for the tenant of the trustee defendants. That arrangement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251557