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 The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the tenancy out of the protection of the Agricultural Holdings Act into the protection of the Rent Act.
Held: There was no new contract and it was the terms of the original agreement which were the essential factor in deciding whether the tenancy was one under which the dwelling house was ‘let as a separate dwelling’ within the meaning of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The letting was for agricultural purposes and was held to be quite inconsistent with ‘the letting of the house as a separate dwelling-house’ for the purposes of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The court set out a series of propositions for dealing with such a situation. A subsequent contract may establish a different use and a unilateral abandonment of agricultural use does not necessarily bring a tenancy within the Rent Act.


Slade LJ


[1982] 263 EG 513, [1982] 2 EGLR 86


Rent Act 1977


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAndrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187735