Artesian Residential Investments Limited v Beck: CA 19 Mar 1999

The tenant sought relief from forfeiture under section 138 against a landlord seeking possession of his assured tenancy. There were arrears of rent which he believed he could pay.
Held: The grounds for possession were statutory, and had been demonstrated. The action was not an action for forfeiture. ‘section 5(1) makes it abundantly clear that the order for possession ipso facto brings the assured tenancy to an end’ and the 1988 Act was explicit in requiring the court to make an order for possession if the ground was made out. The landlord’s appeal succeeded.
Hirst LJ, Mantell LJ
[1999] EWCA Civ 1033, [2000] QB 541, [2000] 2 WLR 357, (2000) 32 HLR 107, [1999] 22 EG 145, [1999] EG 46, [1999] 3 All ER 113, [1999] L and TR 278, [1999] 2 EGLR 30
Bailii
County Courts Act 1984 138, Housing Act 1988 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWhite v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
OverruledKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.145948