Naidu v Yenula Properties Ltd: CA 23 May 2002

This was a second appeal, this time by a former tenant and was as to whether a tenancy was a shorthold tenancy or otherwise. The judge had found that the tenancy commenced in 1995, and no notice of shorthold tenancy having been given, it was an assured tenancy. The case was appealed to the High Court. At a late stage disputes emerged as to the sequence of events and as to adequacy of service of notices. The appeal judge had criticised the judge’s findings. A notice from the tenant could be served on the landlord’s agent, but a landlord’s notice had to be served on the tenant, and not his agent. That rule was not strict, but there is no rule that a lawyer had implied authority to accept such notices. In the absence of such express authority, the notice was invalid, and the tenancy was an assured tenancy.
Lord Justice Robert Walker Lord Justice Rix And Lady Justice Arden
Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 719
Housing Act 1988, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (S1 1988 no.2203)
England and Wales
CitedGalinski v McHugh 5-Oct-1988
A landlord’s notice under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been served on the tenant’s solicitors, who had confirmed that they had authority to accept service. Later the tenant challenged the validity of the service.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.172238