Landlord and Tenant in UK Law

Thus, the reference to the appropriate time does not extend to that moment the opportunity for the reversioner to serve a leaseback notice if he has not made proposals to that effect in the counternotice. Rather it imposes a condition subsequent on the entitlement of the reversioner to a leaseback if he has said he wants one in the counternotice, such that he cannot have it if immediately before the acquisition by the nominee purchaser the relevant flat does have a qualifying tenant.

(2) As a corollary to the first proposition, a landlord is not entitled to refuse his consent to an assignment on grounds which have nothing whatever to do with the relationship of landlord and tenant in regard to the subject matter of the lease. (See Houlder Bros. & Co. y. Gibbs (supra) a decision which (despite some criticism) is binding on this Court; Bickel v. Duke of Westminster (1977) Q.B. 517).

This arises in a situation where a person is entitled to alternative rights inconsistent with one another. If he has knowledge of the facts which give rise in law to these alternative rights and acts in a manner which is consistent only with his having chosen to rely on one of them, the law holds him to his choice even though he was unaware that this would be the legal consequence of what he did.

The second type of waiver which debars a person from raising a particular defence to a claim against him, arises when he either agrees with the claimant not to raise that particular defence or so conducts himself as to be estopped from raising it. This is the type of waiver which constitutes the exception to a prohibition such as that imposed by section 29(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and other statutes of limitation. The ordinary principles of estoppel apply to it.

I agree with Mr Lewison that the court hearing the joint application is neither empowered nor entitled to consider the fairness of the bargain, as such, which the parties propose to make. The words "that tenancy" in section 38(4)(a) require its terms to bear a substantial similarity to that before the court when authority was given. In particular, changes material to the need for protection may nullify the authority granted.

It is clear that at all times since 23rd August 1992 (the beginning of the relevant five-year period) either the British Railways Board or Regional Railways, which were members of the same group, was the landlord for the purposes of Part II of the 1954 Act, by virtue of owning either the freehold or some reversionary leasehold interest (as described by my Lord) in the car park.