New tenancy of grocer’s shop — Dispute as to rental value
His Honour Judge Reginald Clark, QC, said at Clerkenwell County Court on January 20 that he could not regard as evidence, in a case concerning the rent of a grocer’s shop, the assessment given in the new valuation lists. “It is arrived at without any consultation with the owner, and he can appeal against it,” said Judge Clark. “It is decided by an official in the owner’s absence, and the owner has not had the opportunity of being heard.”
Mr Walter John Robinson, of 42, Osborne Road, Palmers Green, was applying under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, for a new tenancy of a shop at 44, Landseer Road, Upper Holloway, where he carries on a grocery and provision business.
The respondent was the owner, Mrs Bessie Shaw, of 192, Golders Green Road, Golders Green, NW11.
Mr Derek Hyamson, counsel for Mr Robinson, said that the business was carried on under a lease granted in May, 1949, expiring on March 25 this year. Applicant was paying a rent of £52 a year, exclusive of rates. Mrs Shaw was not opposing a new lease. The question arising was one of rent. The applicant had offered to pay an increased rent of £78 a year, exclusive of rates. Mrs Shaw was demanding £150 a year, on full repairing lease – “A very substantial increase,” said Mr Hyamson. The premises had recently been revalued for rating. The rateable value of the premises, including a garage not covered by the lease, was £56 a year. The gross value was £75 a year. The property, said Mr Hyamson, was valued at what was deemed to be present market value.
Mr Abraham Booth, a surveyor, of 284, Camden Road, Holloway, said No 44 was one of a “little colony” of shops, and was 90-100 years old. He described it as being in “a third class shopping area,” and considered that a fair rent would be £80 a year.
Called as a witness for Mrs Shaw, Mr Malcolm Hall Harmer, employed by Messrs Drivers and Norris, estate agents, said that the whole of the front and side elevations of the shop appeared to have been built in the last ten years. This had “prestiged” the shop and made it more attractive to a prospective tenant. He thought it reasonable to let the shop at £150 a year, with the lessee liable for rates and all repairs.
In arriving at the value of such property, he said, they would take into account its position and condition, the demand for property of that type, and the amount of such property available. Neighbouring premises had been let at £125, and a higher rent had been offered. This property was occupied by a firm doing television conversions, and he regarded No 44 as a better property.
Mr Mark Gore, counsel for Mrs Shaw, submitted that the tenant’s proposals were extremely inadequate and did not represent a proper letting value.
Judge Clark said that he considered that the rent paid by the television conversion undertaking was not comparable, as they catered for a special need and did not use their premises as a retail shop. He decided that the value of the shop was £100, which he described as “a reasonable figure” between those put forward by the landlord and the tenant. He ruled that the new tenancy should be for a further seven years on the same terms as those of the existing lease. No order was made as to costs.
