Case E notice to quit — Tenant failed to arbitrate — Landlord did not take immediate steps to take possession — Tenant died — Case G notice to quit — No claim for succession tenancy — Reversion severed — Whether first notice to quit valid having regard to severance of reversion — Whether new tenancy granted to executors following expiration of first notice to quit — Claim for possession allowed
By a tenancy agreement dated December 17 1985 Kenneth William Sykes (“the tenant”) held an annual agricultural tenancy of some 291.24 acres of land at Wyverstone, Suffolk, from April 1 1985. By a conveyance made on April 4 1986 Mrs Land, the plaintiff landlord, conveyed a small area of land, being part of the reversion to the agricultural tenancy, to her nephew; the effect was to sever the reversion to the tenancy. On March 17 1987 a notice to quit relying on Case E of Part I of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 was served on behalf of Mrs Land on the tenant on the basis of the wrongful felling of two trees. The notice to quit did not specify the land then held by Mrs Land following the severance of the reversion and it became incontestable when the tenant failed to refer the matter to arbitration within the mandatory three-month limit.
On March 5 1988 the tenant died and a notice to quit relying on Case G was served on the defendants, the tenant’s personal representative; this notice did specify the land in the holding owned by Mrs Land. No member of the deceased tenant’s family made a claim to succeed to the tenancy. On April 1 1988 the first notice to quit expired. On January 25 1989 the tenant’s personal representatives sent a cheque for the half-year’s rent due on October 11 1988; this was eventually presented on behalf of Mrs Land in April 1989. The plaintiff submitted that the Case E notice to quit was invalid; the tenancy had vested in the tenant’s personal representatives, the Case G notice was duly served and had expired and the personal representatives’ right to remain in possession was brought to an end. On behalf of the personal representatives it was contended that the Case E notice was valid, the tenancy terminated on April 1 1988 and the personal representatives remained in possession on the basis of a new tenancy quite distinct from that of the deceased tenant’s and that that tenancy was protected by the 1986 Act and unaffected by the Case G notice.
Held The plaintiff landlord’s claim for possession was allowed.
1. The first notice to quit relying on Case E was invalid. The proper test for determining the construction of a notice to quit was enunciated by Goulding J in Carradine Properties v Aslam [1976] 1 WLR 442 at p 444: is the notice to quit quite clear to a reasonable tenant reading it? Is it plain that he cannot be misled by it? Applying that test, a reasonable tenant, following the severance of the reversion by the landlord, would be confused or misled or left in doubt by the notice. The tenancy did not therefore expire on April 1 1988 but continued and was terminated by the Case G notice.
2. If that was wrong, and the tenancy was terminated by the Case E notice on April 1 1988, the tender and acceptance of rent between January and April 1989 did not in the circumstances demonstrate or constitute an agreement to treat the defendant personal representatives as being granted a fresh tenancy; the payment would have been treated as a payment on account of an undoubted liability on the defendants’ part to pay for their use and occupation of the land.
Jonathan Brock (instructed by Burges Salmon, of Bristol) appeared for the plaintiff; and Paul Morgan (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the respondents.
