Claim for possession — Notice to quit affected by legal definition — Riding school is not “agricultural holding” — Judgment for landlord
This was a claim by Mr Raymond Cecil Deith, of Station Road, Thames Ditton, Surrey, for possession of premises known as the Sherrydane School of Equitation, Newlands Corner Hotel Stables, Newlands Corner, near Guildford, tenanted by Mrs Doreen Gladys Brown on a year-to-year lease.
The judge was asked to decide whether the land and premises on which defendant carried on a riding school constituted an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. His Lordship’s decision on the point would decide whether the notice to quit, served on June 30, 1953, and which expired on March 25, 1954, was good or bad.
The premises included a cottage, stables and outbuildings, and some 12 acres of land. The landlord also sought mesne profits from March 25, 1954.
Defendant pleaded that on July 7, 1953, she served plaintiff with a counter-notice in accordance with the requirements of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 (Section 24, sub-section 1), and “the Minister had not consented to the operation of the notice to quit.”
Mr David Croom-Johnson (instructed by Messrs Richard Davies & Son) appeared for plaintiff; Mr WJK Miller (instructed by Messrs Levett & Son) represented defendant.
Mr Croom-Johnson said the premises were let to defendant from July 31, 1947, under a written agreement, at a rent of £75 a year, plus rates. The action succeeded or failed on the issue of whether or not a riding school was an agricultural holding. He submitted that although defendant kept a few chickens and pigs the overriding purpose of her tenanting the premises was to run a riding school, and that this was recreational or sporting, not agricultural.
Defendant, in evidence, said she had had several acres under tillage, and had sold oats as well as using oats for her ponies. She had also kept up to 120 head of poultry and had sold eggs.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Pearce said he had considerable doubt as to whether the question of user ought to affect the decision on whether the tenancy came under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. It was clear from Howkins v Jardine ([1951] 1 KB 614) that the primary consideration was: what was the substantial purpose for which the premises were let?
Looking at the substantial purpose of the letting, in his (his Lordship’s) view, the tenancy was clearly not within the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Compared with the takings for the riding school of £2,000 for the past few years, the takings from all other sources were trivial. In any event he doubted whether those matters were proper to be considered.
The Court of Appeal in Howkins v Jardine had made it clear that the question of the character of the demise could not be made to depend on changing use and occupation of the tenant, and as in this particular case the user did not conflict with the view he had formed derived from the instrument and the general surrounding circumstances at the beginning of the tenancy that was not a matter of importance. For those reasons he held that the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, did not apply to the tenancy.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff, who said he was willing to give defendant three months to quit the premises. Mesne profits were allowed, and defendant, who was legally aided, was ordered to pay £50 towards plaintiff’s costs.
