Does a tenant’s section 26 request have to be genuine?
Does a tenant’s section 26 request have to be genuine?
Q As landlords of a large factory, we opposed a section 26 request for a new tenancy on the ground that we intended to redevelop. The tenant made no application for a new tenancy and claimed the compensation due under section 37 of the 1954 Act. We have now learned that the tenant’s intention at all times was to relocate. Can we resist the compensation claim on the ground that the so-called request was about as genuine as the proverbial three dollar bill ?
A No: see the successful appeal by the tenant in Sun Life Assurance plc v Thales Tracs Ltd [2001] 20 EG 230 (CS), helpfully reviewed by Sandi Murdoch in Have your cake and eat it Estates Gazette 21 July 2001, p118. The state of the tenant’s mind was held to be irrelevant.
