A landlord purchased the reversion of a lease of a shop the building on three floors, and two years later, the tenancy being near its end, the tenant applied to the county court for the grant of a new tenancy under the landlord and Tenant Act 1954 section 24(1). Wishing to use the shop for his own Jeweller’s business, and to put in a new arcade in the shop front, and to take down a wall at the back for the purpose, the landlord opposed the application under section 31(f) of the Act, on the ground that he intended to reconstruct a substantial part of the premises, and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of them. The county court judge found that the work proposed was not reconstruction of a substantial part of the premises, and granted the application for a new tenancy.
Held: The landlord’s opposition to the Grant or the new tenancy failed for two reasons, viz 1) because the landlord’s primary purpose was not to reconstruct a substantial part of the premises but to use them for his own business, and 2) because there was evidence on which the county court judge could and did find that the proposed work did not constitute the reconstruction of a substantial part of the premises, which was a question of degree and so of fact, and the court could not therefore interfere with his finding.
Denning LJ (with whom Hodson and Morris LJJ agreed) held that, where there were two purposes, only the primary purpose was relevant.
Denning Lj, Hodson and Morris Ljj
[1955] 1 WLR 1127, [1955] 3 All ER 340, 99 Sol Jo 761
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Cited by:
Qualified – Fisher v Taylors Furnishing Stores Ltd CA 1956
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 . .
Overruled – S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd SC 5-Dec-2018
The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be . .
Overruled – Housleys Ltd v Bloomer-Holt Ltd CA 1966
Tenants who used the premises which consisted of a yard, partly covered with cinders, on which stood only a wooden garage, covered about one-third of the site and a brick boundary wall adjacent to the highway for business purposes, applied for a new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.670121
