City of London business premises — Application for new tenancy — Landlords’ intention to demolish and reconstruct
An application by the Livestock Underwriting Agency, Ltd, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, for a new tenancy of their premises at 4, Cullum Street, EC3, was dismissed by his Honour Judge LKA Block DSC, in the Mayor’s and City of London Court on March 15.
The applicants were represented by Mr B Chedlow (instructed by Messrs William Sturges & Co); while Mr Lionel A Blundell (instructed by Messrs Slaughter & May and Messrs Roney & Co) appeared for Corbett & Newson, Ltd (the first respondents) and the City of London Real Property Company, Ltd (the second respondents).
The Livestock Underwriting Agency, Ltd at present hold the premises on a quarterly tenancy. They entered into a tenancy agreement for part of the ground floor of 4, Cullum Street with Corbett & Newson, Ltd for a term of three years from December 25, 1952, with mutual options to break at the end of the second year. In June, 1954, Corbett & Newson, Ltd served a notice to quit on the Livestock Underwriting Agency, Ltd, terminating the tenancy on December 25, 1954, the tenancy being extended on a quarterly basis. In October, 1954, Corbett & Newson, Ltd served the Livestock Underwriting Agency, Ltd with the requisite notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, terminating the tenancy as at June 24, 1955, in view of negotiations for the rebuilding of a larger site including 4, Cullum Street. These negotiations concluded in March, 1955, when Corbett & Newson, Ltd, C&N Trusts, Ltd and George McCall Corbett — the two last-named being trustees for Corbett & Newson, Ltd of the legal estate in the freehold reversion — entered into a contract for a building lease of a site which includes 4, Cullum Street, whereby Corbett & Newson, Ltd undertook to demolish 4, Cullum Street, and the City of London Real Property Company Ltd undertook to erect thereon a new building.
The Judgment
In giving judgment, his Honour said:
It is not necessary for me to go into the various steps which have been taken to arrive at the present position with regard to the tenancy other than to say that it commenced in the year 1952, and I am, therefore, precluded from considering any question of compensation under the Act.
The first respondents have granted to the second respondents, the City of London Real Property Co Ltd, a 98 years’ lease for the purposes of rebuilding upon the site of the applicants’ tenancy and surrounding properties a new building as part of the reconstruction of the blitzed City of London, and I am quite satisfied that that company can properly be regarded as the landlords for the purposes of this application.
The position is a little difficult, but, as I understand it, some trustees, ‘C&N Trusts, Ltd,’ and one George McCall Corbett, are the registered owners of the property the subject of this application; and the position, I suppose, is that all that is now required is a re-registration of the ownership, and the matter would be beyond doubt. At all events, I feel that one has to take the commonsense view in these cases: they are the people who let to the applicants; they are the people who, until a short time ago, collected the rent; and I think they can properly be regarded as the landlords for the purposes of the relevant section of the Act, which is Section 30(1)(f), and which provides that if on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish the holding, or part thereof, and he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding, then, if the landlord establishes that, I have no discretion in the matter but I am forbidden by the statute to make an order for a new tenancy.
I am satisfied, in this case, that the landlords do intend to demolish, and I am also satisfied that they intend to do so on the termination of the tenancy; and I accept Mr Blundell’s submissions that in these matters one cannot say that this is a question of demolishing the moment the other people walk out. You have to take a reasonable view of the matter, and I think that if they start work within the quarter after the termination of the tenancy, which is the Midsummer quarter, they are within the meaning of ‘demolishing at the termination of the current tenancy.’
That really concludes the matter so far as I am concerned.
The landlord has made out his case, and I am precluded from granting a new tenancy.
The application is therefore dismissed.
