Sublease — Possession — Respondent’s tenancy to end upon expiry of notice from council landlord except for purpose of enabling eviction of subtenants — Council serving notice to quit — Whether respondent having sufficient interest in land to enable it to bring possession proceedings against appellant subtenants — Appeal dismissed
Islington London Borough Council granted a two-year lease of a number of properties to the respondent housing association for the purpose of providing temporary accommodation to those in need of housing. The lease recited that, as the council’s programme for estate development progressed, the council would require that the premises be handed back for redevelopment. The council reserved the right to determine the lease at any time by giving 28 days’ notice in writing, upon the expiry of which the respondent’s interest in the premises was to determine “except for the purpose of enabling eviction if required by the Council”. The respondent, in turn, granted a sublease of a property to each of the appellants. Each sublease was in a form prescribed by the headlease, and permitted the respondent to determine the subtenancy by giving four weeks’ notice in the event of the council serving it with a notice to quit.
The council subsequently served the respondent with notices to quit in respect of each of the properties occupied by the appellants, and, shortly thereafter, the respondent served notices to quit on the appellants. After the date of expiry of each of those notices, the respondent brought possession proceedings against the appellants. In their defence, the appellants contended that, at the date upon which proceedings were commenced, the respondent did not have sufficient interest in the properties to entitle it to possession. The judge gave judgment for the respondent. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The situation had to be judged at the time at which the council’s notice to quit had taken effect. At that time, the respondent no longer had an estate in the land. However, the council had required it to take proceedings to evict the tenants so as to be able to hand over the properties with vacant possession. In those circumstances, the effect of the exception in the lease was to confer upon the respondent a continuing right to possession for that purpose. That was the evident intention behind its inclusion in the lease: Manchester Airport plc v Dutton [1999] 1 EGLR 147 and Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell [2000] 2 EGLR 59 considered.
David Carter (instructed by Mary Ward Legal Centre, Hopkin Murray Beskine, and Hodge Jones & Allen) appeared for the appellants; Simon Mills (instructed by Glazer Delmar) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
