Landlord intending to occupy for own business: More guidance on section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Q The landlord of our business premises is resisting renewal on the ground that he intends to occupy them for the purpose of his own business. We cannot dispute his desire to do so, but we can show that he has little or no hope of raising the money required to get the business up and running.
On our reading of Zarvos v Pradhan [2003] EWCA Civ 208; [2003] 26 EG 180, we are on a good wicket. Do you agree?
A Up to a point. The landlord has to show only that he has a reasonable prospect of going into occupation in order to start the intended business. If you turn to the Court of Appeal decision in Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett [1998] 2 EGLR 75, you will see that the court is not concerned with the wisdom or long-term viability of the project. Nothing on this point has been changed by Zarvos, where the trial judge’s adverse finding on the landlord’s prospects was one that the Court of Appeal felt unable to disturb.
Related item:
- See Pie in the sky for restaurateur Estates Gazette 3 May 2003, p112, for a discussion of Zarvos
Landlord intending to occupy for own business: More guidance on section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Q The landlord of our business premises is resisting renewal on the ground that he intends to occupy them for the purpose of his own business. We cannot dispute his desire to do so, but we can show that he has little or no hope of raising the money required to get the business up and running.
On our reading of Zarvos v Pradhan [2003] EWCA Civ 208; [2003] 26 EG 180, we are on a good wicket. Do you agree?
A Up to a point. The landlord has to show only that he has a reasonable prospect of going into occupation in order to start the intended business. If you turn to the Court of Appeal decision in Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett [1998] 2 EGLR 75, you will see that the court is not concerned with the wisdom or long-term viability of the project. Nothing on this point has been changed by Zarvos, where the trial judge’s adverse finding on the landlord’s prospects was one that the Court of Appeal felt unable to disturb.
Related item:
See Pie in the sky for restaurateur Estates Gazette 3 May 2003, p112, for a discussion of Zarvos
