Category: Landlord and Tenant

Lower Street Properties Ltd v Jones: CA 1986

The tenant complained both that her tenancy was a periodic assured tenancy acquired on succession, and that the termination notice given to her was invalid. LSP had granted an assured shorthold tenancy to C, and J was her statutory successor. The notice to terminate gave no date on which the tenancy was to end, but was said to expire ‘at the end of the period of your tenancy which will end after the expiry of two months from service’ of the notice.
Held: J was the statutory successor, but held only an assured shorthold. A notice of possession had to state the date on which possession was required, which had to be the last day of the tenancy, and that must be not less than two months before the notice was served. The notice had referred to the last day with sufficient specificity because it could readily be ascertained by calculation.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Because of the wording of section 21(4) if an actual date is to be given in the notice it must be ‘the last day of the period of the tenancy’ and there is an obvious risk of a minor arithmetical error giving rise to the argument that the notice is invalid which no doubt is why the printed form suggests as a possible form of wording that the notice will expire ‘at the end of the period of your tenancy which will end after the expiry of two months from the service upon you of this notice’.’
In an assured tenancy, proceedings should not be issued until the notice period had properly expired. In this case they were premature.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Phillips and Schiemann LJJ

Citations:

[1996] 48 EG 154, [1996] 28 HLR 877

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Cited – Notting Hill Housing Trust v Roomus CA 29-Mar-2006
The landlord had served a notice to quit on his tenant. The notice specified that possession would be required ‘at the end of your period of your tenancy’ It was objected that the notice was ineffective.
Held: The notice must be interpreted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.228509

Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd v Clarke: CA 1919

Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies’ so that the 1915 Act applied.
Held: The premises were ‘let as a separate dwelling’. Bankes LJ: ‘The house was dwelt in by the defendants and let to them for that purpose. It is in the fullest sense a dwelling-house and none the less so because it is also a public-house. [Counsel for the landlord] contended that the Acts do not apply to houses if let for business purposes. I cannot accept that view. No doubt if the word ‘dwelling-house’ is given its ordinary meaning the Act may seem to include cases not contemplated by the Legislature; but a restricted meaning would exclude many cases which were intended to be included. The object of the Legislature was to include all houses which are occupied as dwelling-houses provided they are of the class ascertained by their value as prescribed by the Act, notwithstanding that they are also used by the tenant for other purposes as well as those of a dwelling-house.’

Judges:

Bankes.Scrutton and Atkin LJJ

Citations:

[1919] WN 170

Statutes:

Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.242241

Russell v Booker: CA 1982

The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the tenancy out of the protection of the Agricultural Holdings Act into the protection of the Rent Act.
Held: There was no new contract and it was the terms of the original agreement which were the essential factor in deciding whether the tenancy was one under which the dwelling house was ‘let as a separate dwelling’ within the meaning of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The letting was for agricultural purposes and was held to be quite inconsistent with ‘the letting of the house as a separate dwelling-house’ for the purposes of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The court set out a series of propositions for dealing with such a situation. A subsequent contract may establish a different use and a unilateral abandonment of agricultural use does not necessarily bring a tenancy within the Rent Act.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1982] 263 EG 513, [1982] 2 EGLR 86

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – National Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the . .
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187735

Assethold Ltd v 14 Stansfield Road Rtm Company Ltd: UTLC 30 Jul 2012

LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – claim notice – validity – references to 2003 rather than 2010 Regulations – whether ‘inaccuracies’ – held that they were – signature – whether to be by member of officer of company – held that it need not be – other claimed defects in notice rejected Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ss 79, 80 and 81 – Right to Manage (Prescribed Particulars and Forms) (England) Regulations 2010 regs 4 and 8.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 262 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.463427

Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd: CA 1990

In a tenancy agreement for one year and thereafter from month to month, the tenant covenanted to do all the inside repairs and to leave the inside in good repair, order and condition at the expiry of the tenancy.
Held: The decision of the Recorder that the circumstances justified the implication of a covenant on the part of the landlord to repair the structure, was upheld.
Kerr LJ gave three reasons. Commenting on the agreement in Sleafer, he said: ‘It is also to be noted that the Lease provided, by Clause II, that the tenant was to reside in the dwelling – that is to say, in the same way as here, that it was not to be used for any business purposes’. He then referred to cases where the court found the landlord of property where the tenants were obliged to contribute to repairs and the landlord was found under a co-relative obligation to carry out repairs.

Judges:

Kerr LJ, Swinton-Thomas J

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sleafer v Lambeth Borough Council CA 1959
The plaintiff held a weekly residential tenancy of the defendant local authority. The front door was defective and jammed. The tenancy agreement contained a covenant by the tenant to keep the flat in good and tenantable repair. When the tenant . .
Cited – Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .

Cited by:

Decided on Special Facts – Adami v Lincoln Grange Management Limited CA 17-Dec-1997
No General Duty on Landlord to Repair Structure
The plaintiff was a tenant of an apartment in a block. He appealed a ruling that there was no term implied into his lease imposing on the landlord a duty to maintain the structure of the building. The lease contained service charge provisions, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.259560

Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council: CA 14 May 1998

It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances and within a reasonable time to prevent or control the nuisance, may thereby be held to have caused, continued or adopted that nuisance.
Held: Hirst LJ rejected that proposition, saying (amongst other things) that Smith v Scott was decisive authority against it: ‘Two main questions arise in connection with the claim in nuisance, using that word in its technical tortious sense, first as to its scope, and secondly as to the ambit of responsibility of landlords for their tenants’ acts of nuisance.’ The essence of the tort of nuisance was that: ‘the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s land interferes with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s land.’
A local Authority, as landlord of tenants committing gross racist acts, was not liable in nuisance or negligence to neighbours for its failure to control their behaviour even though it set out to attempt to do so.

Judges:

Hirst LJ

Citations:

Times 27-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 834, [2000] QB 1, [1999] 4 All ER 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v James 1876
A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts. . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144312

Mattey Securities Limited v Ervin, Sutton, Mitchell: CA 3 Apr 1998

After the insolvency of an assignee of a lease, the landlord talked with possible new tenants, and the original lessee now said that the landlord had impliedly accepted a surrender of the original lease, thus releasing him from continuing liability.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. The judge had made findings of fact to which he was entitled, and ‘the plaintiffs were unable to reach agreement on the terms for assignment to Bellbrink Ltd, and that is why negotiations broke down, so that there was, in my judgement, no intention to enter into a legal relationship.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Bracewell LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 625, [1998] 2 EGLR 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Copeland v Watts CCP 1815
Gibbs CJ: ‘… it would be productive of dangerous consequences to presume a surrender to the lessor, from the fact of his [the lessor] receiving payment from an assignee; a landlord in general was willing to receive payment from the person who . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Lyon v Reed 1844
The court examined the principle of the surrender of a lease by operation of law: ‘. . . all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the . .
Cited – Longrigg, Burrough Trounson v Smith CA 1979
The defendant dealer in antiques also lived in the property with his wife. He refused to leave after the expiry of the term, claiming a Rent Act tenancy. The lessors had accepted rent from the defendant undertenant who contended that thereby a new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144103