Business tenancy — Grounds for termination by landlord — Intention to demolish premises comprised in the holding — Whether appellant landlord able to rely upon such intention where structures amounting to tenant’s fixtures removable by tenant upon termination of lease — Appeal dismissed
The appellants were the landlords and the respondent was the tenant of land under a lease qualifying as a business tenancy for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The respondent applied for a new tenancy under Part II of the Act. The appellants opposed that application under section 30(1)(f) on the ground that they intended to demolish either the entire premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of them upon the termination of the tenancy, and that they could not do so without obtaining possession of the holding.
Excluding a small stone shed, the structures on the site, including two large huts, had been erected by the respondent. Under the terms of the lease, the respondent was obliged to remove them on termination. A preliminary issue was tried as to whether the appellants could satisfy section 30(1)(f) (see [2005] EWHC 983 (QB); [2005] 22 EG 132 (CS)).
The judge found that the structures were the tenant’s fixtures, which the respondent intended to remove. On that basis, he held that section 30(1)(f) was not satisfied, since it would have required removal of the structures by the appellants and of their own volition; it was not possible for a landlord to acquire a ground of opposition to a new tenancy based upon the tenant exercising its own right of severance. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The section 30(1)(f) ground had not been made out. If the respondent demolished the existing structures pursuant to its obligation under the lease, there would, upon the termination of the tenancy, be no buildings there in respect of which the appellants could have an intention to demolish: Gregson v Cyril Lord Ltd (1962) 184 EG 789 applied. In respect of the stone shed, the appellants had not demonstrated that they would require possession of the holding to demolish it.
It was not necessary, in the instant case, to decide whether tenant’s fixtures could ever be said to be “comprised in the holding”, such that a landlord could rely upon an intention to demolish those left behind by the tenant.
Leslie Blohm (instructed by Clarke Willmott, of Bristol) appeared for the appellants; Alan Steinfeld QC and Malcolm Warner (instructed by Stones, of Exeter) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
