A prospective purchaser of a house (No 1 Falling Lane) under construction had agreed that, if he were allowed into occupation before completion, he would occupy, pending completion, as tenant at will, paying a weekly sum. In the event, the house not being ready, he was allowed into possession of another house (No 7 Falling Lane) in the same road, paying a lesser sum. The landlord later sought determination of a standard rent of No 7 Falling Lane under section 11 of the 1928 Act. The question for decision was whether standard rent was to be determined by reference to the actual rent payable in respect of No 7 Falling Lane on 1 September 1939, or was to have regard to standard rents of similar houses in the neighbourhood – section 6 of the 1933 Act, as amended by section 3 of the 1939 Act. That turned on whether No 7 Falling Lane was ‘let’ on 1 September 1939.
Held: It was. It was immaterial, in that context, whether the tenancy was a tenancy at will or a weekly tenancy. Lord Greene: ‘Once it was pointed out that it was a tenancy and that this was a rent, the necessary result . . . follows that that was the figure at which the standard rent ought to have been determined.’
Judges:
Lord Greene MR
Citations:
[1943] 112 LJKB 206
Statutes:
Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1928 11, Rent and Mortgage Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Banjo v London Borough of Brent CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant had occupied the premises under a long lease which expired by effluxion of time. The landlord failed to take any steps to retake possession, and the tenant continued as a tenant at will, paying no rent. The landlord eventually issued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.223955
