Landlord seeking to redevelop property – Notice served under section 25 and break clause in lease – Whether condition precedent to service of notice under break clause had been satisfied – Whether notice was valid for purposes of section 25 and break clause – Whether new tenancy could be successfully opposed – Tenants’ application dismissed
The defendant granted a lease of the basement of America House in Cockspur Street in Westminster, the property. The plaintiff took an assignment of the lease and was protected as a business tenant. In 1994 the defendant decided to redevelop the property and the building in which it was located. Notice intended to terminate the lease was sent to the plaintiff with a covering letter. The letter informed the defendant that the notice was being served both under section 25 and in accordance with the break clause contained in clause 5(b), which provided that if the "[defendant ] shall desire to demolish or recontruct" notice in writing was to be given to the tenant. The defendant gave counter-notice, sought a new tenancy and stated that it was not willing to give up possession and made an application for a declaration that the notice served by the defendant under section 25 was invalid.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not satisfied the condition precedent to the service of a notice under the break clause in that the plaintiff had not "desired" to demolish or reconstruct the building at the date of service of the notice and that therefore the notice was not effective. The plaintiff contended that the notice was an effective break notice as well as a valid section 25 notice and that it was entitled to oppose the grant of a new tenancy on the grounds in section 30 (1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II.
Held The plaintiff’s application was dismissed.
1. The word "desire" as a matter of language meant simply to wish for something, therefore it was sufficient that the defendant had contemplated, in general terms, the demolition or reconstruction of the property at the date the notice was served. The defendant had satisfied the condition precedent to the service of the notice.
2. The covering letter, taken in conjunction with the section 25 notice, operated both as an effective break clause notice and a valid statutory notice. It had not been necessary for the defendant to serve two separate notices because the notice had not needed to be effective under the break clause to be a valid section 25 notice, and because the notice was to be read in conjunction with the covering letter, from which it was clear that the defendant desired to develop the property within the meaning of the break clause.
3. The redevelopment scheme met the requirements of para (f) as works of demolition or reconstruction and there was a very good prospect of the defendant being able to carry out the scheme. Therefore, since the works could not be carried out without vacant possession, the plaintiff’s application was to be refused.
James Munby QC and David Iwi (instructed by Izod & Co) appeared for the plaintiff; Edwin Johnson (instructed by Radcliffes Crossman Block) appeared for the defendant.
