In September 1955 the landlords bought to adjoining shops which were about 250 years old and near the end of their life. They intended to undertake the demolition of the premises for which it was necessary to obtain possession, to rebuild on the site and to occupy the new buildings for the purpose of their business as furniture retailers. They gave notice to the tenant of one shop terminating his tenancy on December 25th 1955 under the landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and to the tenant of the other shop terminating her tenancy on March 25th 1956. When the tenant of the first shop applied for a new lease under the act, they opposed the application on the section 30(1)(f) on the ground that they intended to demolish and reconstruct the premises. The county court judge held that the case was indistinguishable from Atkinson v Bettison and ordered the grant of a new lease on the ground that the landlords intended to occupy the premises for the purpose of their business under section 30(1)(g) for which they were debarred from obtaining possession as purchasers of the property within 5 years.
Held: A new lease ought not to be granted since the landlord’s had satisfied the requirements of section 30(1)(f) by showing a genuine intention to demolish the premises, notwithstanding the intention also to occupy the newly constructed premises for the purposes of their business.
Denning LJ, delivering the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, reinterpreted his earlier judgment in Atkinson v Bettison and resiled from his statement that only the primary purpose was relevant. A landlord might have two purposes but, provided that the purpose of demolishing or reconstructing the premises was genuine, it would satisfy ground (f). Grounds (f) and (g) were distinct and each of them had to be considered on their own terms separately. The true view of the earlier decision, he said (p 84), was that the courts should ensure that landlords whose real purpose was to occupy the premises themselves but failed to satisfy ground (g), did not devise spurious schemes of works in order to obtain possession on ground (f): ‘For this purpose the court must be satisfied that the intention to reconstruct is genuine and not colourable; that it is a firm and settled intention, not likely to be changed; that the reconstruction is of a substantial part of the premises, indeed so substantial that it cannot be thought to be a device to get possession; that the work is so extensive that it is necessary to get possession of the holding in order to do it; and that it is intended to do the work at once and not after a time. Unless the court were to insist strictly on these requirements, tenants might be deprived of the protection which Parliament intended them to have. It must be remembered that if the landlord, having got possession, honestly changes his mind and does not do any work of reconstruction, the tenant has no remedy. Hence the necessity for a firm and settled intention.’
Morris LJ said: ‘ Where, as in section 30(1)(f), proof of an intention is to be supplied, and of an intention related to a particular time, then the genuineness of a declared intention may have to be decided. Considerations as to what may be a landlord’s ‘primary purpose’, or his ‘real intention’, or his ‘main purpose’, or his ‘secondary purpose’, or his ‘real reason’ (to quote phrases which have been used), are only of relevance and assistance in the course of deciding whether the landlord has proved that he genuinely has an intention of doing one of the things specified in section 30(1)(f), and of doing it on the termination of the current tenancy.’
Denning Lj, Morris Lj
[1956] 2 QB 78, [1956] 2 All ER 78, [1956] 2 WLR 985, 100 Sol Jo 316
Landlord and Tenant 1954 30(1)(f) 30(1)(g)
England and Wales
Citing:
Qualified – Atkinson v Bettison CA 1955
A landlord purchased the reversion of a lease of a shop the building on three floors, and two years later, the tenancy being near its end, the tenant applied to the county court for the grant of a new tenancy under the landlord and Tenant Act 1954 . .
Cited by:
Cited – S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd SC 5-Dec-2018
The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.670122
