The Court of Appeal has ruled that a housing association, whose lease was terminated by its council landlord, was entitled, under the terms of the lease, to bring possession proceeding against its subtenants.
The court has dismissed a challenge by seven subtenants of Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd to a decision by Clerkenwell County Court District Judge Armon Jones in which he held that Alamo wasd entitled to possession orders against the subtenants.
Alamo’s two-year lease contained clauses by which the landlords, Islington London Borough Council, had the right, at any time, and for any reason, to require possession of the property.
The sublease contained provisions that it was the intention of Alamo and the subtenants that “the Co-operative should allow the tenant to occupy the premises temporarily pending such time as the council shall wish to recover possession”.
David Carter, counsel for the subtenants, argued that a “claimant in a possession action must have a right to enter and occupy and have effective control of the land”. He said that the lease did not give Alamo any such right after notice to quit, served by the council, had taken effect.
Dismissing the appeal, Schiemann LJ said that a clause in the lease that provided for its termination contained an exception “for the purpose of enabling eviction if required by the council”. This, he said, had the effect of conferring upon Alamo “a continuing right to possession for that purpose”.
He found that the subtenants did not claim “any right themselves to occupy the premises, and the council, which are entitled to the premises, have asked Alamo to evict the defendants so as to be able, as near as may be, to fulfil their covenant to hand over the premises with vacant possession. Possession proceedings seem eminently suitable for achieving this aim.”
Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd v Meredith and Others Court of Appeal (Schiemann and Mance LJJ and Richards J) 4 April 2003.
David Carter (instructed by Mary Ward Legal Centre, Nopkin, Murray Beskine, and Hodge Jones & Allen) appeared for the appellants; Simon Mills (instructed by Glazer Delmar) appeared for the respondent.
References: PLS News 7/4/03
