Secure tenancy – On tenant’s death tenancy being taken over by daughters – One daughter purporting to end joint tenancy – Landlord seeking possession – Whether tenancy to which daughter succeeded surrendered by operation of law on death of mother and replaced by joint tenancy – Whether daughter estopped from denying joint tenancy
The Newham London Borough Council, the landlords, let a four-bedroomed house at 77 Clarence Road, London E16, to Mrs P, the defendant’s mother. Mrs P, who was a secure tenant, died in December 1983. At that date the defendant and her two younger sisters, one of whom was severely mentally handicapped, had, for more than the preceding 12 months, been living in the house. On October 6 1983 the sisters visited the landlords’ housing department. The defendant stipulated that she was to succeed to the tenancy, but she did not object to the name of her sister, B, being added to the rent book. The necessary forms were duly signed. The relationship between the sisters deteriorated and by a notice to quit served on September 19 1994 B purported to terminate the tenancy. Thereafter B was rehoused. The landlords sought an order for possession against the defendant on the basis that, following the mother’s death the defendant and her sister had become joint tenants and by her notice to quit B had terminated the joint tenancy. The defendant contended that there had never been a joint tenancy, but that she had at all times been the sole tenant by virtue of section 30 of the Housing Act 1980 and by a family agreement made immediately after the mother’s death that she should be the successor. The judge held that the claim for possession failed on the ground that the defendant enjoyed a secure tenancy as successor to her mother pursuant to section 30 of the 1980 Act, as replaced by section 89 of the Housing Act 1985. The landlords appealed contending that the judge ought to have accepted one of the alternative amended pleas introduced at trial, namely (1) that the tenancy to which the defendant had succeeded immediately following their mother’s death was on October 6 1983 surrendered by operation of law and replaced by a joint tenancy or (2 ) that the defendant was estopped from denying that she and her sister were joint tenants.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The landlords, by the date of the proceedings, believed that the sisters had become joint tenants by section 30 succession, a transmission which was by law impossible: see Daejan Properties Ltd v Mahoney [1995] 2 EGLR 75. However, the document signed by the defendant and her sister on October 6 1983 assumed that the secure tenancy would continue and would pass to the defendant and her sister jointly and, even though the second part of that assumption was erroneous, it could not mean that the document took effect as a surrender of that which was assumed to continue. Once the defendant had stipulated that she was only agreeable to her sister’s name being added to hers on the rent book on the basis that she was to remain the successor tenant, there was no implied surrender of the tenancy nor any grant of a new joint tenancy. No surrender by operation of law could have arisen and the judge had been correct to reject the landlords’ argument based on surrender.
2. No subsequent conduct in the succeeding period had the effect of putting an end to the defendant’s tenancy and there was no basis on which a joint tenancy by estoppel could be said to have arisen.
Gillian Carrington (instructed by the solicitor to Newham London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; the respondent appeared in person.
