[2A] Ex clusive P ossession
1.Lease or license?
2.Lease? = S v M – 3 Indicia Test of ex clusive possession:
To grant a lease y ou need to giv e them ex clusive possession of the land. Diff erent t o exclusiv e occupation. Stree t v Mountf ord- The three essen tial indicia of a t enancy are:
(1)A gra nt of ex clusive possession – rig ht to e xclude the landlord a nd everybody else
from the pr operty . -> Multiple occupatio n, can they int roduce a new per son? Is it a sham/pret ence- Int ention?
(2)For a t erm- period of time f or which you hold the land – need f or certainty
(3)At a rent – not strictly neces sary but most charg e payment f or the use of land
-If ha ve all 3 – you then ha ve a lease. Most import ant is no.1 Stree t v mountf ord- one landlor d, one occupier (in Bournemouth) – arrangements made and husband to live with her but h e wasn’t ar ound when contr act made – so in her name as self -cont ained accommoda tion. Stree t gave her a document ca lled license agree ment, specifying she cou ld occupy the room, in common with someone els e nominated by the landlord. (a t this time, subject to rent Act - as long as you paid ren t, you c ould sta y as long as you wan ted) T erm at the botto m of the agreemen t, called Coda - signed recognis ing she did not hav e
rent act security . Qu, whether this constitut ed a tenancy or licenc e. Ct of Appeal- landlord had t o intend t o create a leas e. – but Supreme Ct - inten tion was determ ined objectively by the t erms of the arr angement – name of doc was not conclusive & t he HoL reject ed term giving the landlor d the right t o intr oduce someone else as its not what the parties intend ed. “ sham agreemen t” “a pretence”
Multiple occupiers:
Antoniades v Villers – unmarried coup le took a flat , both signed separ ate license agreem ents – agr eed to shar e with each other but if one of them left, the landlord cou ld intr oduce a ra ndom third per son. Also , while they w ere a coupl e, the landlord cou ld intr oduce a thir d person or occupy h imself . Precedent in this comes fr om Somma v Haz elhur st. – unmarried couple in a single bedsit r oom. – had the landlord done so , it would br each the fir e regulatio ns. CoA- allow ed the licenses in Somma v Haz elhurst. Do they r everse this or no t? As in A v V , three people could liv e in the flat. HoL r ever ed somma v Hazelhur st – the y wer e tenan ts, LL couldn’t intr oduce anyone els e. – intr oduced terminology of pr esence
when rejecting the thir d person. AG securities v V aughan – 4 roomed fla t, landlord gr anted the use of r ooms separa tely. All mov ed in at diff erent times and paid diff erent r ents. Fr ee to lea ve individually . HoL, rev ersed Co A decision, these people w ere licensees a nd not tenan ts. A, had to share with B , C &D- no ex clusive occupa tion. One room which was best – every one else mov ed round the fla t if one left. Sharing occupa tion. Split Ren ts:
Mikeover v Br ady- Occupier s paid unequal rent. Held by CoA - to pa y unequal ren ts mean they ar e licensees and not tenan ts. Sub-license agreemen ts:
Bruton v London Quadr ant Inv . - property wh ich was short lif e property - scheduled for demolition and rebuild ing. London council wan ted to use it until it wa s rede veloped. Gr ant a license t o a housing charity – to be used a s a hoste l for homeless men. One such homeless man w as Bruton – given e xclusiv e use of a ro om, but every time it r ained, wat er came in thr ough the ro of- conditions wer e not habitable. If B had a lease, the L L would ha ve to r epair, where a s if it was a license- no repairing and t ermination. Lease or li cense? Millett said in this chance, London quadr ant don’t ha ve exclusive possession – don’t ha ve the right to e xclude the owner - no EP , means they can’t gr ant EP to an yone else (Maj ac ademic view). Lor d Hoffman said- if the sub-LL, reports t o gra nt EP to an occupi er it crea tes a lease between them. Using a principle of Est opple. No valid lease ag ainst owner of land. [2B] Leasehold Est ates
Distinguishing fr eeholds and leaseholds:
Defined in LP A 1925 s.1(1)
Term of y ears ab solute Lease can be cut short - e.g. if you don’t pay r ent. When the lease is over , it reverses back to being a fr eehold. Commencement:
LPA 1925 s.149(3)- a lease is void, if it purports t o gra nt possession, mor e than 21 year s aft er the gr ant of the lease- r eversion r elease. –can gr ant future leases , with a max of 21 yr s. Swift v Macbean – From the outbrea k of war , until the t ermination of the w ar. – granted during thes e periods. Lease was v alid. T erminatio n – overruled ca se. W eak authority f or a lease. – an y lease must be r egistered. So the ga p between t odays date and the da y the person move s in cannot be longe r than 21 year s, otherwise inv alid.
Perpe tual renew al:
LPA 1922 s.190 – conv erts it int o a lease f or 2000 year s- fixed the r ent f or 2000 into the future, pr obably by mis take. Parkus v Gr eenwood – Exampl e – L to T f or 3 year s, with an option to rene w on same terms, includ ing this covenant f or renew al. This proc ess can go on f orever , as long as you k eep renewing the lease. Maximum dur ation fixed :
