The lessee had given a covenant not to share occupation of the premises. He was claimed to be in breach of the covenant: ‘In a strict legal sense the word ‘possession’ has a highly technical meaning, and the sharing of possession is an unknown concept. It has been said that a possession is single and indivisible. So when you get what might be termed a sharing of possession, the two sharers become one, as, say, joint tenants and one is back to the original concept. But ‘possession’ also has a broader popular meaning, and it means the sharing of the use or occupation.’ Rather than giving the word ‘possession’ in the covenant its strict legal meaning, with the result that the covenant against sharing possession would have no effect, it would be right to construe the covenant as precluding the sharing of occupation.
Judges:
Sir Douglas Frank
Citations:
[1981] 2 EGLR 55
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Wrongly decided – Akici v LR Butlin Ltd CA 2-Nov-2005
The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.234408
