Subtenancy in UK Law

Formerly the extinguishment of the tenancy by surrender also extinguished the reversion to any sub-tenancy, so that the remedy for the rent and the covenants attached to the reversion ceased with the reversion to which they were annexed.

The letting in each case was of a house comprising more dwellings than one. But I agree with the county court judge in thinking that Parliament when it enacted Section 1 (1) used the singular diliberately, and in this instance did not intend the singular to include the plural. The policy of the Rent Acts was and is to protect the tenant in his home, whether the threat be to extorta premium for the grant or renewal of his tenancy, to increase his rent, or to evict him.

That submission, as it seems to me, is based on two assumptions which cannot be supported. First, it assumes that that a head landlord has no interest in the terms of the underlease as to rent and repairs for so long as the headlease subsists.

Second, the submission is based on the assumption that the terms of any tenancy which might arise between the head landlord and a permitted sub-tenant upon the termination of the headlease will be the terms of the permitted underlease. But there is nothing in the headlease which requires that any permitted underlease will be for a contractual term equal (or nearly equal) to the remaining term of the lease.

The issue of construction does not admit of any lengthy useful elaboration and the citation of authorities on the construction of clauses which are not practically identical affords no assistance. In my judgment the proviso to clause 4(28) limits the circumstances in which the absolute prohibition on underletting is qualified and the tenant has a right to request consent. The mandatory conditions stipulated in the proviso must be satisfied.

Thirdly, the claimant's construction produces business uncertainty. If the claimant were able to trigger completion at any time during the notice period, the defendant could be placed in a position where it would not know where it stood until shortly before the expiry of the period. I think Mr Gaunt is right that the clause contemplates a period of certainty when the claimant can seek another tenant and the defendant can make preparations to vacate.

Thirdly, having heard the evidence of Mr Shapiro, I do not accept that there was any damage to the reversion such as to entitle Riverland to withhold its consent. In my judgment, the damage of which Mr Shapiro spoke was remote and speculative.