Forfeiture — Alleged breach of covenant — Section 146 notice — Works carried out at tenants’ expense — Whether tenants knew of works — Whether breach of covenant — Whether landlords entitled to peaceably re-enter — Judgment for tenants
By a lease made in 1984 the plaintiff tenants held a term of three shops in New Bond Street, London W1, for 25 years from June 24 1984. On September 1 1989 agents of the defendant landlords noted that the tenants’ contractors were installing a replacement air-conditioning unit on the roof, and outside the demise, of the shops. The contractors, believing that the landlords did not approve of the method of installation, notched the floor joists and laid the pipes under the floor boards. The work was paid for by the tenants without their knowing that the pipes and been laid in notches. On December 20 1989 the landlords gave notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requiring remedial action. On February 20 1989 the landlords made a forcible entry with the aid of locksmiths, who drilled out the existing lock and disconnected the burglar alarm; bailiffs then entered and took possession.
The tenants brought proceedings claiming there had been no breach as they could not be held liable for acts which they had not authorised, or if they were in breach and there had been forfeiture of the lease, they were entitled to relief from forfeiture.
Held Judgment was given for the plaintiff tenants. The works which were alleged to constitute breaches of covenant were not done by or on the instructions of the tenants but contrary to their instructions by an independent contractor and its subcontractor without the tenants knowing of the acts at the time they were done. A person does not ratify an act by paying the contract price in ignorance of how the works were carried out. A tenant cannot be responsible for work not done, nor authorised, nor known of by it; there was no breach of covenant. The section 146 notice was therefore ineffective and the lease had not been forfeited.
John McDonnell QC and David Parry (instructed by Jaques Lewis) appeared for the plaintiff tenants; and Michael Barnes QC and John Male (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the defendant landlords.
