Lessees asked the court for variation of the terms of their lease so as to permit further subdivision of the premises. The application failed in the county court. The landlord’s interests elsewhere might be affected if the application were granted, by leading to further applications of a similar kind; that the landlord’s objection to an increase of density of the population was reasonable; and that there would be no advantage to the public in making the variation.
Held: The lessees submitted that where planning permission had been granted the court should vary the terms of the lease, its discretion being limited to how, and on what terms and conditions, the planning permission should be carried out, but the court rejected the submission. The general subject-matter of section 163 of the 1936 Act was against the contention that ‘may’ in the section should be construed as ‘shall’, and that the judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion he had reached.
Citations:
[1953] CPL 86
Statutes:
Housing Act 1936 163, Housing Act 1949 11
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli and Another CA 10-Oct-2007
Objecting neighbours appealed against a decision allowing a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow the owner to convert a dwellinghouse into two self-contained apartments.
Held: The appeal failed. The power in the 1985 Act to vary a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.260192