The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease.
Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the tenanted property. When a tenant has sublet, the question of whether he is still in occupation is for him to show as matter of substance.
Citations:
Times 20-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2525, (1998) 30 HLR 831
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lesley and Company v Cumming KBD 1926
The County Court had held that the landlords were not entitled to recover possession of a flat of which the defendant was tenant because the premises had not been taken out of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act by the tenant twice . .
Cited – Jackson v Pekic and O’Brien CA 1990
The court looked to the meaning of ‘a resident landlord’ in the section. The question was whether the landlord in that case was on the 14th August 1974 occupying as her residence another dwelling house which formed part of the same premises in which . .
Cited – Poland and Another v Cadogan CA 1980
The court was called upon to construe the Act. when the question was whether a tenant could bring himself within the Act had to be more strict than the construction of the Rent Acts because the Leasehold Reform Act enabled a tenant to acquire . .
Cited – Brown v Nash and Ambrose CA 1948
The statutory tenant was sent to prison but left his mistress and children in the premises and subsequently the mistress and children left the premises.
Held: ‘We are of the opinion that a non-occupying tenant prima facie forfeits his status . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142923