Wellcome 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: Sub-tenants in residential occupation of what were mixed residential and commercial tenancies, do have protection and security of tenure under the Rent Act 1977. The authority referred to in Moulson was Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd. The decision in Pittalis was not to be followed.
Leggatt LJ: ‘[W]e must test the question whether property demised by a superior tenancy constitutes ‘premises’ by asking whether it is a dwelling house within the extended meaning indicated by this court in the Epsom Grandstand case . . and thereafter perpetuated in the cases to which we have referred, albeit reinforced by statute from time to time in the form of the provisos.’
Leggatt LJ
Times 13-Oct-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2237, [1998] QB 368, [1998] 1 All ER 657
Bailii
Rent Act 1997 137(3)
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: . .
Not FollowedPittalis v Grant CA 1989
A point was raised for the first time on appeal.
Held: Though an appellate court could exclude a pure question of law which had not been raised at first instance from being raised on appeal, the usual practice was to allow it to be taken where . .

Cited by:
CitedPirabakaran 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 . .
CitedDesnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
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: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142634