The landlord, served a notice to quit, and obtained entry to the property without force and removed the doors and windows so that it could no longer be used as a dwelling. The plaintiff brought an action for trespass.
Held: After referring to the landlord’s right, at common law, to retake possession of the demised premises peaceably after the determination of the tenancy, the court pointed out that, following the enactment of the 1920 Act, the position was regulated by section 15(1). The provisions are ‘quite clear’, and ‘A statutory tenancy is created, and the terms of the statutory tenancy are to be the same as those which have prevailed during the contractual tenancy. At the expiration of the notice the plaintiffs were in possession. They retained possession, and they were there on the terms of their original tenancy. They were under a legal obligation to carry out the obligations which had rested on them, and the landlord was under the same obligation; and the plaintiffs had the benefit of any terms and conditions which formed part of the contract of tenancy. No one disputes that one of the obligations resting on the landlord, of which the plaintiffs had the benefit, was an undertaking for quiet enjoyment. It is perfectly clear from the two cases which have been cited to me – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd and Cruise v Terrell – that the effect of the section is that a statutory tenancy is created on the terms which I have stated. The statutory tenant has the same rights and is subject to the same obligations as prevailed during the tenancy. Therefore the landlord has no conceivable right to interfere with their possession or to trespass on the premises occupied by them, unless he obtains an order giving him possession of the premises.’
Atkinson J
[1942] 2 All ER 72
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 815(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
Cited – Cruise v Terrell CA 1922
The plaintiffs stayed at weekends at a cottage let for a fixed term of one year. The contractual term ended on 25 March 1921 and was not renewed. On 7 April, in the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendant sent the local blacksmith to the cottage, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc CA 6-Jan-1999
The applicant’s property was charged to the defendant. At the time it was not occupied. The mortgage fell into arrears, and after serving notice at the property, the bank took posssession and sold the property at auction. The claimants said the bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.230372 br>