The Landlord resisted a new tenancy under the 1954 Act saying that it intended to demolish and redevelop.
Held: The lease had provisions which would allow the landlord to do the works required without refusing a renewal. It should be renewed. The 1954 Act is not to be allowed to stand in the way of redevelopment. When construing the Act: ‘One must first look at the apparent policy of the Act. I think that this was to give security of tenure to business tenants so far as that was thought to be reasonably practicable. Security of tenure was no new idea . . In every case one has to examine the relevant Act to find the limits of the security.’ For the purposes of s30(1)(f) the phrase ‘obtaining possession of the holding’ means obtaining legal possession which would yield physical possession rather than simply physical possession of the holding. The House referred to ‘the inherent improbability, upon a purposive construction of the Act as whole, that Parliament should have intended to deny security of tenure to a tenant because the landlord intended to carry out the work upon the premises which he was entitled to do under the terms of the existing tenancy.’ and ‘The ‘holding’ referred to in s. 30 (1)(f) is ex hypothesi one in respect of which there is a subsisting tenancy, since s. 24 (1) extends the current tenancy until the tenant’s application for a new lease has been finally disposed of. ‘Obtaining possession of the holding’ (s.c. by the landlord) must, in my view, mean putting an end to such rights of possession of the holding as are vested in the tenant under the terms of his current tenancy. This is the ordinary meaning of ‘obtaining possession’ in the context of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Moreover, an examination of the Act shows that when the word ‘possession’ is used it means the legal right to possession of the land.’ ‘
Judges:
Lord Reid, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Morris
Citations:
[1973] AC 498
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities Plc and others CA 10-May-2002
The tenant sought a renewed tenancy under the Act, and the landlord opposed it saying that the property was to be redeveloped. The tenant contended that since his was an ‘eggshell’ tenancy, having a tenancy of surfaces within the property and not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.180937