Leasehold Reform Act 1967 — Notice to acquire freehold — Demised premises included two acres — House comprised in an agricultural holding excluded from 1967 Act — Whether house comprised in an agricultural holding — Appeal dismissed
In 1901 Glebe House, Oare, Somerset, and some 23 acres of surrounding land were demised for 99 years at a ground rent. It was accepted that the demised premises were used for agricultural purposes up to 1963. By a deed of partition in that year, the joint tenants at the time partitioned the demised premises, with Glebe House and two acres being held by one tenant and the balance of the land being held by the other. The appellants acquired by assignment only the interest in Glebe House and the two acres and they do not use the land for agriculture. But the balance of the land under the lease is still used for agriculture.
The appellants’ claim that they were entitled to acquire the freehold interest under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, by virtue of their occupation for the required three years, was dismissed in the Taunton County Court (December 7 1987); it was held that the qualification in section 1(3) of the Act applied.
Section 1(3) provided: “This Part of this Act shall not confer on the tenant of a house any right by reference to his occupation of it as his residence (but shall apply as if he were not so occupying it) at any time when… (b) it is comprised in an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948″.
Held The appeal was dismissed. Despite a covenant in the 1901 lease against any trade or business use, the use of the land by 1963 was as “agricultural land” as defined in what is now section 1(4) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Even if the letting had not originally been a “contract for an agricultural tenancy”, it had become one under section 1(3) by the landlord’s acquiescence. In accordance with the decision in Howkins v Jardine [1951] 1 KB 614, the whole of the land comprised in the 1901 tenancy, with exceptions that do not substantially affect the character of the tenancy, are still let as agricultural land.
The 1963 partition of the lease did not create two separate tenancies now held by separate assignees; it followed that Glebe House and the two acres were held under a tenancy which comprised an agricultural holding and the appellants were therefore not qualified to acquire the freehold.
Jelley v Buckman
[1974] QB 488 considered.
Sir Ashley Bramall (instructed by Clarke Willmott & Clarke, of Taunton) appeared for the appellants; and Charles Lowry (instructed by Robbins Olivery & Blake Lapthorn, as agents for Hole & Pugsley, of Tiverton) appeared for the respondents.
