The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Held: The effect of section 12(2)(ii) appeared ‘to affirm in statutory form what the Court of Appeal had decided [in the Epsom Grandstand case].’ The commercial use of part of the premises did not ‘stop the premises in which he lives from being a dwelling house’.
Judges:
Scrutton, Greer and Sankey LJJ
Citations:
(1928) 27 LGR 175
Statutes:
Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 1(1) 12(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Mentioned – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
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 . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
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 . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242242