Landlord opposed tenants application for a new lease on grounds (a) and (b) of s30; i.e. disrepair and persistent delay in paying rent. These are discretionary grounds. The rent was payable quarterly in advance. The tenant had paid the rent a few days in arrears throughout the whole period of the lease. This practice had been acceptable to the landlord, and there had been no complaint about it, until new agents were appointed in July 1999.
The judge had refused the claim for a new lease, having regard to the whole history of delay in paying rent, but the CA said that he was wrong to do so. The CA did not merely state that the judge had wrongly exercised his discretion but went so far as to hold that the landlord was estopped from insisting upon the strict terms of the lease until clear notice had been given to the tenant. Having regard to both the rent and disrepair issues the CA considered that the decision of the judge was unduly harsh and ordered a new lease.
The estoppel point is perhaps a bit doubtful. There was no clear representation / reliance / detriment analysis in the judgment and counsel for the tenant had not put the argument quite as high. In his skeleton argument he argued that the situation was akin to estoppel.
Hazel v Akhtar [2001] EWCA Civ 1883; [2002] 07 EG 124.
Article: Tenant wins by default by Sandi Murdoch An article on the case containing the following summary: A relaxed management approach can prevent a landlord from successfully opposing renewal. (Estates Gazette, 9 February 2002, p151).
Back to top
www.propertylawuk.net
|
|