Bhogal v Cheema: 1999

The court considered a claim by the landlord that a surety under a lease which had been disclaimed by the liquidator of the tenant company was liable for rent arrears. The surety replied that after the disclaimer, the landlord was obliged to mitigate the loss of rent from the tenant. The landlord had not taken possession nor taken steps to re-let.
Held: ‘However, the landlord cannot be compelled to take possession and, of course, it will not be in his interest to do so if the market rent of the premises is less than the rent payable under the lease, unless possibly he takes the view that his remedy against the surety is unlikely to yield the full amount of the rent.’


Sir John Vinelott


[1999] LTR 59


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245833