The landlord objected to the renewal of the lease, saying that he intended to occupy the premises for his own business. The court had found that he intended to sell the property. Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. Parliament has not laid down any rule as to how long the landlord must intend to occupy the … Continue reading Patel and Another v Keles and Another: CA 12 Nov 2009
The landlord asserted that a tenancy should not be renewed and claimed to have held the freehold for more than 5 years.
Held: The Landlord had only become the reversioner to the lease after accepting a surrender of the head lease. The Act . .
The defendant landlord rejected the claimant’s application for a new tenancy, saying that his own wife’s occupation of part of the premises for her business was sufficient to allow him to require possession.
Held: there was no authority for . .
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
The landlord opposed the grant of a new tenancy. The business tenancy was an oral one, and he opposed renewal on the ground that the tenant was operating in breach of planning controls.
Held: An illegal use is a reason connected with the . .
The claimant sought to renew its leases of docking facilities from the landlord defendant. The defendant resisted saying it intended to operate its own business, and the claimant now alleged that the defendant was abusing its dominant position to demand excessive rents. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. Held: The … Continue reading Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports: ChD 24 Feb 2011
The landlord resisted renewal of the business tenancy saying that he intended to occupy the premises himself. The Court was asked whether the landlord could show the necessary intention under section 30(1)(g) where it intended to occupy the premises . .
As to the landlord’s intention to reconstruct the premises on opposing a renewal: ‘[a] man cannot properly be said to ‘intend’ to do . . work when he has not got the means to carry it out. He may hope to do so; he will not have the intention to do . .
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting . .
The landlord said he resisted the grant of a new lease saying that he wanted to occupy the premises himself for his own business. He was also shown to have an untention to demolish the building.
Held: An intention to demolish was inconsistent . .
The appellant is the landlord of business premises. The tenant, the respondent to this appeal, brought proceedings under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord resisted the application on the ground set out in section 30(1)(g), that he intended to occupy the premises for … Continue reading The Gulf Agencies Ltd v Ahmed: CA 3 Feb 2016
In September 1955 the landlords bought to adjoining shops which were about 250 years old and near the end of their life. They intended to undertake the demolition of the premises for which it was necessary to obtain possession, to rebuild on the site and to occupy the new buildings for the purpose of their … Continue reading Fisher v Taylors Furnishing Stores Ltd: CA 1956
Pre-trial review of pending trial. The court ordered the hearing of a preliminary issue being: ‘the issue of whether the Defendant intends to occupy the holdings for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by it . .
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .