Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 — Objection to new tenancy — House and garden described as ‘building’ in landlord’s notice — Whether necessary to refer to ‘holding’
This was an appeal by Mrs Mary Lily McMullen, tenant of 13, Rowan Road, Streatham, London, SW, against a judgment of Judge Malcolm Wright at Croydon County Court rejecting her application under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, for a new tenancy from the respondents, the Great Southern Cemetery & Crematorium Co, Ltd.
Mr WDM Sumner (instructed by Mr W Timothy Donovan) appeared for the appellant tenant, and Mr M Albery QC and Mr John Hall (instructed by Messrs Godden, Holme & Co) represented the respondent landlords.
Before the appeal was argued, Mr Sumner asked for an adjournment because the tenant had applied to the County Court judge for a retrial on the ground of new evidence, which, she alleged, showed that the landlords’ true intention was not to use the premises for their own purposes. Counsel explained that if the appeal were dealt with, the point might be taken at the application for a retrial that the application for a new tenancy had been wholly disposed of.
Mr Albery gave an assurance that his clients would not take that point.
Mr Sumner said that the landlords had opposed a new tenancy on the ground that they required the premises for the purposes of their own business. The premises consisted of a shop, living accommodation, and a garden which was used for storage purposes. In their notice determining the tenancy, the landlords described the premises as ‘the building,’ and it was submitted, in consequence, that the notice did not state a ground within the Act for opposing a new tenancy. It was necessary to refer to ‘the holding.’
Giving judgment without calling on counsel for the respondents, LORD EVERSHED MR said that the notice determining the tenancy said: “we would oppose an application to the Court for a new tenancy on the ground that on the termination of the current tenancy we intend to occupy the building for the purpose of the business to be carried on by us therein.”
Section 30(1) of the 1954 Act listed the grounds on which a landlord could oppose a new tenancy, and these included a ground ‘that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to occupy the holding.’ Mr Sumner had submitted that the ‘building’ here was appreciably less than the ‘holding.’ If it were necessary that the terms of the notice had precisely to follow the Parliamentary language there might be some substance in the appellant’s contention. He (his Lordship) agreed, however, with the judge that the reference to ‘building’ – a mere typographical error — was not a sufficient blemish to invalidate the effect of the landlords’ notice. A landlord’s obligation was to indicate with sufficient clarity to be understood on what ground he would seek to oppose a tenant’s application for a new tenancy. The view taken by the judge was reinforced by recent decisions in the House of Lords that the landlord’s obligation to prove an intention was sufficiently fulfilled if established at the date of the hearing. The notice was intended by way of a pleading, and its object was to inform the other side of the case that would have to be met. If the garden here had been of a substantial area on which an independent business could be carried on, the tenant could fairly take the point that the landlord intended to use only part of the holding. By using the word ‘building’ the landlords could not sensibly have meant to have excluded the small bit of garden or courtyard.
SELLERS LJ and ROXBURGH J agreed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
