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 tenancy for mixed purposes falls under the protection of the Act of 1954, provided that there is continued occupation for business use, and the phrase ‘let as a dwelling’ in s.2 of the Act of 1977 means ‘let wholly or partly as a dwelling’ and so applies to premises which are let for mixed residential and business purposes. The phrase had a statutory history which implied this meaning: ‘Their meaning cannot in my view have fluctuated with the tides which have ebbed and flowed in this court in relation to the meaning of the phrase in other contexts. ‘ There was a requirement to give the tenant his article 8 rights, and ‘an interpretation of s.2 of the Act of 1977 which prohibits a landlord from exercising – otherwise than by proceedings in court – an alleged right of re-entry upon premises let for use as a dwelling as well as for business purposes is an interpretation which would be compatible with the tenant’s rights under article 8; and, by contrast, that the opposite interpretation of it would be incompatible with them.’
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Wilson
[2006] EWCA Civ 685, Times 17-Jul-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3112
Bailii
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 2, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1915, Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939 3(3), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, European Convention on Human Rights 8(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEpsom Grand Stand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such . .
CitedMaunsell 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: . .
CitedWellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
MentionedHicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
MentionedRegina v Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal Ex parte Slaughter CA 1954
. .
MentionedBritish Land Co. Ltd v Herbert Silver (Menswear) Ltd CA 1958
The court may look to the circumstances surrounding the grant of a lease, and then if necessary the user, to see its purpose, if it is not clear from the lease. . .
CitedHicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
CitedWagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
CitedPulleng v Curran CA 1980
The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them.
Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. . .
CitedCheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .
CitedWebb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
CitedNational Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
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 . .
CitedKay 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 . .
CitedKay 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 . .
CitedConnors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
CitedBillson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd HL 12-Dec-1991
Relief from forfeiture was available against a landlord who had peaceably re-entered property subject to a tenancy without a court order. Such a landlord was still ‘proceeding’ to enforce his rights of forfeiture until he obtained a judgment for . .
CitedFarrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .

Cited by:
CitedBroadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant CA 20-Dec-2006
The respondent had taken a tenancy of premises from the local authority. The ground floor was for use as a shop, and the first was residential. He had previously taken a licence and had refurbished the premises. The authority sold the freehold to . .
CitedTan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.242218