Egerton v Rutter: CA 1951

A tenant of an agricultural holding died intestate leaving her son and daughter in actual possession. Almost two months after the tenant’s death and before any Grant of Letters of Administration the landlord served a notice to quit addressed to the executors of the late tenant. The son and daughter received the notice. They claimed to be in possession as tenant and had paid the rent.
Held: The notice could properly have been served on the President of Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division as the temporary tenant under the Administration of Estates Act 1925 but that on the facts the son and daughter could be regarded as agents for that President. There was thus service on an agent of the tenant within section 92(3). Even a wrongly addressed notice, so long as it came to the attention of the person most likely, in practical terms, to be most affected by it, was to be considered valid. Alternatively, the fact that notice had been addressed to the executors of the late tenant was mere ‘falsa demonstratio’; the position was obvious and no-one was misled into thinking that it could have been addressed to anyone but ‘those really interested, namely, the defendants who were in possession’.


Lord Goddard CJ


[1951] 1 KB 472


England and Wales

Cited by:

FollowedWilbraham v Colclough and others 1952
. .
CitedLodgepower Ltd v Taylor CA 22-Oct-2004
The claimant was a tenant of agricultural land. He sought repairs, and served a notice on the executors of the now deceased landlord, but only later were letters of administration granted to the defendants. The judge had found the service of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.218726