The court looked to the meaning of ‘a resident landlord’ in the section. The question was whether the landlord in that case was on the 14th August 1974 occupying as her residence another dwelling house which formed part of the same premises in which the dwelling to which the tenant had been granted a furnished tenancy was situated.
Held: By reason of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the 1977 Act and Section 2(3) of the Act and Section 3(2) of the Rent Act 1968, the phrase ‘occupying a dwelling house as his residence’ had to be construed as fulfilling the same and only the same qualifications as had to be fulfilled under the earlier Rent Acts. Parliament was providing that in construing that phrase a court had to look at the earlier decisions on the meaning of ‘retaining dwelling house as his residence’. Ralph Gibson LJ ‘It is clear, in my judgment, from the passages cited that the concept of a tenant not losing the protection of the Rent Acts for his occupation of the dwelling house as his residence, although he is not himself in physical occupation, was designed to ensure protection notwithstanding those absences which are consistent with the tenant retaining and intending to retain the dwelling house as his residence and not, where for example the tenant’s absence is because he is merely making money by sub-letting …. It is also clear to my mind that the continuing intention to return to occupy the premises at some later date is not by itself sufficient to constitute occupation of the dwelling house as his residence if the tenant has left no sufficient physical sign of that intention. It may be that in some circumstances furniture will serve as such a visible sign, particularly if the tenant leaves also those personal possessions such as books, pictures and ornaments, which are capable of indicating that a tenant is still treating the premises as his home. There is no principle of law which says that the mere presence of furniture, consistent with an ordinary furnished letting at market rent could serve for that purpose.’
Judges:
Ralph Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ
Citations:
[1990] 22 HLR 9
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ujima Housing Association v Ansah and Another CA 17-Oct-1997
The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease.
Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220480
