The landlord had let two houses to the same tenant. Each had been converted into flats. The tenant lived in neither house but argued from the 1889 Act, that the singular includes the plural, and that he was a protected tenant within the meaning of section 1(1) of the 1968 Act.
Held: The court dismissed his appeal. In the context of the Act, and bearing in mind the policy of the Rent Acts, the singular did not include the plural; and, accordingly, that neither tenancy was within the definition of a protected tenancy as each of the two houses had been let as a house comprising several dwellings.
Russell LJ said that notwithstanding that the result contended for by the respondent landlord was in his view somewhat anomalous, the weight of authority was in favour of accepting such anomalies and holding that the Interpretation Act 1889 did not apply, and that the singular did not include the plural: ‘As to the first question, the point appears to me to be this: whether the phrase ‘a tenancy under which a dwelling-house (which may be a house or part of a house) is let as a separate dwelling’ embraces a case in which the tenancy includes when created a residential building containing more than one of what might conveniently be described as units of habitation. The question appears to be ultimately whether by force of the Interpretation Act 1889 ‘is let as a . . dwelling’ is to be construed as ‘is let as a . . dwelling or dwellings’. On this point it seems to me immaterial that the houses in question are physically adapted for a great number of units of accommodation: the question really is the same as would arise for solution when on the granting of the tenancy of a house it consisted of two separate self-contained flats.’
Scarman LJ: ‘The letting in each case was of a house comprising more dwellings than one. Was it the letting of a house as a dwelling (both parties agree that the word ‘separate’ is of no importance in this connection)? If [counsel for the tenant] is right that the Interpretation Act 1889 requires us to construe the subsection’s phrase ‘a dwelling’ so that it includes ‘dwellings’, cadit quaestio: each tenancy is protected. But I agree with the county court judge in thinking that Parliament when it enacted section 1(1) used the singular deliberately, and in this instance did not intend the singular to include the plural. The policy of the Rent Acts was and is to protect the tenant in his home, whether the threat be to extort a premium for the grant or renewal of his tenancy, to increase his rent, or to evict him. It is not a policy for the protection of an entrepreneur such as Mr Lambert whose interest is exclusively commercial, that is to say, to obtain from his tenants a greater rental income than the rent he has contracted to pay his landlord. The Rent Acts have throughout their history constituted an interference with contract and property rights for a specific purpose – the redress of the balance of advantage enjoyed in a world of housing shortage by the landlord over those who have to rent their homes. To extend the protection of the Acts to tenancies such as these in this case would be to interfere with contract and property rights beyond the requirements of that purpose.’
Judges:
Russell and Scarman LJJ and Plowman J
Citations:
[1976] Ch 39
Statutes:
Interpretation Act 1889, Rent Act 1968 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245808
