Premises had been sub-let under full repairing leases and the disrepair which was the subject of the landlord’s action against the head tenant was due to breaches by the sub-tenants of their repairing obligations, who had by the term date of the head lease applied for new tenancies under the 1954 Act.
Held: There was no difference between the rental value of the properties in repair and their value out of repair. The reversion had to be valued subject to the rights of the sub-tenants to renew, and they could not, when renewing, pray in aid their own breaches of covenant in order to reduce the rent.
Events subsequent to the end of the lease, but operative or potential at that time might be allowed for when asessing the losses suffered.
Citations:
[1980] 1 EGLR 46
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lyndendown Ltd v Vitamol Ltd CA 6-Jul-2007
At the end of the lease, the subtenant had failed to comply with his obligation to repair the property, leaving the head tenant liable to the landlord. The landlord had issued a letter which forgave the tenant from his obligations.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259146