The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and personally to reside in the farmhouses. They fell into arrears of rent; and, having complied with the pre-requisites set by the Act of 1986, the landlords served a notice to quit.
Held: A notice to quit an agricultural holding did not need to include the notice of eviction rights required for a domestic tenancy, even though the holding consisted in part of a dwelling. ‘Premises let as an agricultural holding, even if there is a dwelling upon the holding, do not constitute premises let as a dwelling for the purposes of s 5 of the Act. I accept the submission that the ‘premises’ are the subject matter of the letting, that is the entire acreage, but they are let as an agricultural holding and not as a dwelling. The subject matter of the letting includes a dwelling but I cannot read the section as if it used the expression ‘premises which include a dwelling’ or ‘any dwelling house let as a part of premises’.However that did not mean that such tenancies had the protection given by the 1977 Act.
Pill LJ, Judge LJ
Gazette 11-Jun-1997,  EWCA Civ 1707,  1 WLR 230
England and Wales
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Dellhold Estates (UK) Pty Ltd v Lindsey Trading Properties Inc 1994
The word ‘premises’ in s 46(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 means the subject matter of the letting and the section applied to an agricultural holding which included a dwelling house. S 48 of the Act was governed by s 46(1) which applied it . .
Cited – Regina v Yuthiwattana CACD 1984
The defendant appealed against his convictions under the 1977 Act.
Held: Under section 1(2) the deprivation of occupation for one day was insufficient. To constitute an offence, the deprivation had to take the character of an eviction. . .
Cited – Russell v Booker CA 1982
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the . .
Distinguished – Holford Investments Ltd v Lambert 1982
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.142103