Patel and Another v Keles and Another: CA 12 Nov 2009

The landlord objected to the renewal of the lease, saying that he intended to occupy the premises for his own business. The court had found that he intended to sell the property.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. Parliament has not laid down any rule as to how long the landlord must intend to occupy the premises for the purposes of his business. The undertaking given was in terms imited to two years, and was not an undertaking to use the premises as required by the section relied on. ‘can the court properly conclude that the landlord has not shown the requisite intention to occupy premises where it has found that a sale is merely likely as opposed to intended, and was the court entitled so to conclude in the circumstances of this case? I would answer the first question: in an appropriate case, yes. Section 30(1)(g) does not require that the landlord should intend to occupy the premises for any particular length of time . . his intended occupation must not be fleeting or illusory, but this is a minimum requirement which might be an appropriate test to apply where the business is to be continued through successors in title. In other circumstances, in my judgment there must be some substance in the intended occupation for the purpose of carrying on the landlord’s business and thus I agree with the judge that the occupation must be more than short-term.

Waller VP LJ, Arden LJ, Thomas LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1187, Times 08-Dec-2009
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)
England and Wales
CitedCunliffe v Goodman CA 1950
The court looked at the intention required of a landlord to show an intended purpose to oppose renewal of a lease. Asquith LJ said: ‘An ‘intention’ to my mind connotes a state of affairs which the party ‘intending’ – I will call him X – does more . .
CitedLennox v Bell 1957
When offered an undertaking by a party, the court may attach such significance to it as it thinks appropriate. . .
CitedWillis v Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth CA 1965
The landlord resisted renewal of the business tenancy saying that he intended to occupy the premises himself. The Court was asked whether the landlord could show the necessary intention under section 30(1)(g) where it intended to occupy the premises . .
CitedZarvos v Pradhan and another CA 7-Mar-2003
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.377884