The High Court has taken the unusual step of advising the landlord and mortgage-holder of a house in Luton to transfer both the title and the mortgage of the property to his tenant.
The court was upholding a ruling sent to it by the Oxford County Court, in which a judge rejected a claim made by the landlord against the tenant for non-payment of rent, and instead ruled that the tenant had a “one hundred percent beneficial interest” in the property.
While landlord and tenant disputes are ten-a-penny in the County Courts, they don’t usually result in the tenant being given the house.
While the facts of the case are murky, what isn’t under dispute is that the landlord, Mohammed Tahir, bought the property with an interest-only mortgage in 2006 and registered the title in his own name. He has been registered as the legal owner ever since.
The tenant, Faiz Faizi, has lived at the property with his family since the purchase.
Between 2006 and 2015, when the parties began their dispute, Faizi had sometimes paid the mortgage himself, and at other times Tahir had paid it. Faizi had also converted the garage into an office.
However, when both parties stopped paying the mortgage in 2015, the legal dispute began.
Faizi argued that the property was his because Tahir bought it on his behalf. He claimed that, because of his immigration status, he was unable to buy a property. So, Tahir bought it on his behalf, using money for a deposit provided by Faizi. Faizi said he paid the mortgage, and Tahir had agreed to transfer the title and mortgage over at a later date.
Tahir denied this, saying that the pair had only ever had a landlord-and-tenant relationship.
While the County Court judge was unimpressed by the quality of the evidence from both sides, he backed Faizi, ruling that he should have the full beneficial interest.
And in a ruling yesterday, the High Court upheld the judgment, rejecting an appeal from Tahir.
However, as there is no dispute that the title was correctly entered into the land registry, the judge has not ordered the title to be transferred, but instead has suggested a course of action that would avoid any need for further litigation.
“In light of my conclusions,” the judge wrote, “the parties would be well advised to arrange in due course for the legal title to the property to be transferred from Mr Tahir to Mr Faizi, and for the mortgage to be novated from Mr Tahir to Mr Faizi.”
The mortgage provider “would, of course, have to consent to the novation. I have not seen the documentation for the mortgage, but it is also likely that [the mortgage company’s] consent would be needed for the transfer of the legal title. These are matters, however, for the parties to resolve, ideally without further recourse to the court.”
Mohammed Tahir – and – Faiz Ul Hassan Faizi
QBD (Mr Justice Murray) 25 June 2019
Conor Kennedy (instructed by Landmark Legal LLP) for the appellant
Russell Wilcox (instructed by Allied Law Chambers Solicitors Ltd) for the respondent
