Allen held a yearly tenancy of premises subject to a yearly sub-tenancy of part. The sub-tenancy was afterwards acquired by the defendant. Allen surrendered his tenancy to the freeholder who re-let the premises to the plaintiff. Neither the tenancy nor the sub-tenancy was determined by notice to quit. The plaintiff’s action for possession of the part occupied by the defendant failed. It was argued for the plaintiff that ‘It must be admitted that it has been decided that no voluntary act of a lessee in surrendering, or otherwise putting an end to his tenancy, can affect the interest of his under-tenant’. Cockburn CJ understood him to include the giving of an upwards notice to quit by the tenant to the landlord, and said: ‘Sir Henry James admitted that there had been no notice to quit, and, moreover, that Allen could not by giving notice to his landlord determine the under-lease . .’ No such notice had been given.
Blackburn J said: ‘Allen had no power to derogate from his landlord’s rights. Subject to those rights, he had a right to sub-let; and by doing that he could not prevent the landlord from giving a notice to quit in invitum, which would have determined both Allen’s and the defendant’s interest. But no voluntary act on the part of Allen, by which his own interest might be determined, could put an end to the interest which he had created in the defendant.’
Judges:
Blackburn J, Cockburn CJ
Citations:
(1874) LR 9 QB 400
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Barrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
Cited – Barrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
Applied – Sparkes v Smart 1990
A notice to quit was served by the head landlord in collusion with the head tenant. . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190573