Where a rent review clause fails to specify the term to be taken by the hypothetical tenant, it is normally assumed that the term will be equivalent to the unexpired residue of the actual lease. However, this can work unfairly on the landlord if the residue can be measured in several decades, since the tenant should be able to show that a typical lessee would fight shy of such a commitment.
In such a case, the usual assumption gives way to an alternative assumption that the duration will be for such term as might reasonably be expected to be on offer and in demand. For a recent example, where the alternative assumption was made, see
Where a rent review clause fails to specify the term to be taken by the hypothetical tenant, it is normally assumed that the term will be equivalent to the unexpired residue of the actual lease. However, this can work unfairly on the landlord if the residue can be measured in several decades, since the tenant should be able to show that a typical lessee would fight shy of such a commitment.
In such a case, the usual assumption gives way to an alternative assumption that the duration will be for such term as might reasonably be expected to be on offer and in demand. For a recent example, where the alternative assumption was made, see Unacceptable terms Estates Gazette 27 May 2000, p134, where Sandi Murdoch reviews Westside Nominees Ltd v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EGCS 20.
