Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 — Tenant’s claim for new lease — Owners’ intention to use premises not proved — Landlords’ appeal dismissed
This was an appeal by Messrs M Blakey & Co (Bradford), Ltd, of 28, Westgate, Bradford, from a judgment by Judge Archibald, at Bradford County Court on September 22, 1955, given in favour of Mr Harold Herbert, of Mornington Villas, Manningham, Bradford, the tenant of 22, Westgate, premises owned by Blakey & Co.
Mr Herbert, who carried on a draper’s business at 22, Westgate, had applied for a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. The landlords opposed the application on the ground that they intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of the business carried on by them.
The judge granted a new lease to Mr Herbert.
Messrs Blakey & Co appealed on the ground that the judge was wrong in law in holding that by certain contraventions of the Companies Act, 1948, and/or the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, the business carried on by the landlords in the style of Willey & Co was not a business carried on by them, or, alternatively, the landlords were not trustees of Willey & Co and could not take advantage of Section 41(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
Mr JT Molony, QC, and Mr Parry Payton (instructed by Messrs Austin J Wright & Co, agents for Messrs Frederic H Richardson & Walker, of Bradford) represented the appellants, Blakey & Co; Mr CJ Doughty, QC, and Mr LA Pratt (instructed by Messrs Young, Jones & Co, agents for Messrs Marsden & Cockshott, of Bradford) appeared for Mr Herbert.
Mr Molony said Mr Herbert had been in business at 22, Westgate since 1936 and had had a succession of leases from Messrs Blakey & Co. The current five-years’ lease began in March, 1951, at a rent of £500 a year. Mr Herbert carried on his business as Herberts (Bradford), Ltd, but the lease was granted to Mr Herbert personally. He was the sole shareholder in the business.
The leases were granted to Mr Herbert by Messrs Blakey & Co, but the business carried on by them in adjoining premises — a wallpaper and decorators’ shop — was under the name of Willey & Co, who had no incorporated association with them.
Mr Molony said the landlords opposed the granting of a new lease on the ground that they would occupy the premises for their own business, under Section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. In an oral judgment, the judge decided against the landlords on two grounds, including the “identity of the business ” point. Later, after seeing the transcript of the judgment, the judge issued a written judgment to the parties in which he stated that he based his decision on the failure to prove the intention to occupy the premises and not on the “identity of business” point.
In regard to the judge’s decision that he was not satisfied as to the landlords’ intention to occupy the premises,Mr Molony agreed that for some years they had been ready to sell the premises, but in May, 1955, they came to a definite and honest resolve to occupy the premises. There were no grounds for doubting that intention.
The respondents were not called on to reply.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Denning said Mr Herbert had been tenant of the premises for nearly 20 years as a retail draper and Messrs Blakey & Co had been landlords for many years, occupying adjoining premises. The current lease was due to expire in March this year. The issue in this case was whether the landlords intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of their business.
Mr Herbert’s evidence, his Lordship said, showed that for several years until March, 1955, the landlords had been ready to sell the premises to him and had offered to do so. They led him to believe that they did not require the premises for their own purposes. It was not until May, 1955, that Mr Herbert was informed by the landlords’ solicitors that they wanted the premises for their own occupancy. Mr Herbert immediately put in an application for a new lease.
His Lordship said the burden was on the landlords to prove they had a firm and settled intention to use the premises for their own business purposes. Whether the judge was satisfied they had such an intention was a matter for the judge and his Lordship did not think this Court could interfere with the judge’s finding on that fact. The appeal should be dismissed.
Lords Justices Morris and Parker agreed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
