A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting the business have been dealt with. There is a twofold test. The landlord must show a genuine desire to operate a business from the premises, and also a reasonable prospect of doing so: ‘The question whether the landlords intend to occupy the premises is primarily one of fact, but the authorities establish that to prove such intention, the landlords must prove two things. First, a genuine bona fide intention on the part of the landlords that they intend to occupy the premises for their own purposes. . . Secondly, the landlords must prove that in point of possibility they have a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about this occupation by their own act of volition . . it is essentially an objective test, that is to say, would a reasonable man, on the evidence before him, believe that he had a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about his occupation by his own act of volition?’
Upjohn LJ explained the requirements as to the objective evidence required from the landlord: ‘It is an objective test upon the evidence before the court: have the landlords established, not what the planning authority or the Minister would determine, but the different and practical question: would the reasonable man think he had a reasonable prospect of giving effect to his intention to occupy? On the facts of this case . . this amounts to an inquiry whether the landlords on the evidence have established a reasonable prospect either that planning permission is not required or, if it is, that they would obtain it. This does not necessitate the determination by the court of any of the questions which may one day be submitted to the planning authority or to the Minister; it is the practical appraisal upon the evidence before the court as to whether the landlords, upon whom, let me stress, the onus lies, have established a reasonable prospect of success.’
Judges:
Upjohn LJ, Diplock LJ, Denning MR
Citations:
[1962] 3 All ER 907, [1963] 1 WLR 41
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cunliffe v Goodman CA 1950
Action for damages for breach of a repairing covenant on the expiry of a lease. The court looked at the intention required of a landlord to show an intended purpose to oppose renewal of a lease. Asquith LJ said: ‘An ‘intention’ to my mind connotes a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Zarvos v Pradhan and another CA 7-Mar-2003
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
Cited – Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett CA 3-Apr-1998
The landlord opposed the renewal of the tenancy saying that it wanted to run a golf club on the land. The tenant replied, saying that the businees had little prospect of success.
Held: Where the landlord had expressed intention to commence . .
Cited – Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent CA 3-Feb-2000
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .
Approved – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 10-May-2012
The tenant appealed against a finding that the landlord was entitled to resist renewal of its lease under the 1954 Act challenging the stated intention of the landlord to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. It said that the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180504