Application for new lease — Landlord’s intention to demolish held not proved — Lease for three years granted
In Joss v Bennett, decided at the Reigate County Court on February 7, 1956, the applicant, who occupied certain picturesque and rather antiquated premises for the purposes of his practice as a veterinary surgeon, applied for a new tenancy of the premises under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and the respondent opposed the application on the ground that he intended to demolish the premises. It was found that the respondent had a genuine desire to demolish the premises and intended to do so insofar as it lay in his power, but his intention to demolish was bound up with an intention either himself or through some other person to rebuild. The respondent had obtained an estimate of the cost of demolition, which he had accepted, and shortly before the first hearing on December 20, 1955, he had made an outline application to the local Planning Authority for town planning consent to the demolition of the existing premises, and for permission to build on the site three shops with living accommodation over. No detailed plans of the proposed new building had been prepared and the financial and economic aspects of the proposed development had only been investigated in a general way and on the basis that permission would be obtained to erect three shops with living accommodation over. At the date of the final hearing, the outline application had been refused on the ground that no vehicular access to the rear of the premises was proposed, although it was likely that this difficulty could be overcome.
It was held by Judge Gordon Clark that the respondent had not proved an intention to demolish within the meaning of Section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act (Cunliffe v Goodman, 1950 1 All ER 720 applied). Held further that in the not very distant future it was more than likely that the respondent would have a genuine intention to demolish which was likely to be carried out and that, accordingly, the grant of a long lease was not appropriate and that a lease for three years would be granted to the applicant.
For the applicant: Solicitors: Russell Sons and Bass: Counsel: Mr Montague Waters.
For the respondent: Solicitors: Underwood & Co: Counsel: Mr Adrian Hamilton.
