Lease — Restrictive covenant — Obligation to use premises as dwellings for the working classes — Meaning of working classes — Whether provision spent — Whether Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction — Application by plaintiffs dismissed
By a lease dated March 31 1937 and made between the second Duke of Westminster and the plaintiffs, and further by section 5 of the Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement Act 1929, the plaintiffs could not lawfully require or accept the payment of any premium by or on behalf of any occupier or prospective tenant of any dwelling erected upon land demised by the second Duke to the plaintiffs under the 1937 lease. Further, by clause 2(ix)(a) of the lease the plaintiffs were under an obligation to use the dwellings as dwellings for the working classes within the meaning of the Housing Act 1925 and for no other purpose. The demised premises consist of blocks of flats.
The plaintiffs sought declarations that the reference to “working classes” was now spent and no longer of any effect. They also sought a declaration that the Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction to discharge or modify the obligation in the lease. By way of counterclaim the defendants sought declarations, inter alia, that nothing in the lease or the Act prevented the plaintiffs from granting leases at a premium of the dwellings under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1985.
Held The application was dismissed.
The covenant is not spent and is in full force notwithstanding the difficulty of determining who does belong to the working classes. The Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction to modify the obligation but the exercise of its jurisdiction is a matter for its discretion. The lease contains positive obligations on the plaintiffs to provide a building and not to keep it empty.
John Colyer QC and Paul Morgan (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the appellants; and Gavin Lightman QC and Frank Hinks (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) appeared for the respondents.
