Jenkin R Lewis & Son Ltd v Kerman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Agricultural Holding - Notice to quit - Validity - Tenancy agreement made in 1941 - Reduction in area and rent by successive surrenders - Agreements for increase of rent between assignee of tenancy and then landlord in 1961 and 1968 - Death of original tenant - Notice to quit served within three months - Whether 1961 and 1968 agreements effected surrenders by operation of law of pre-existing tenancy and consequent grant of new tenancies - Whether notice to quit valid -
In 1941, by a written tenancy agreement, a landlord agreed to let certain agricultural land to B. for a term of three years from September 29, 1941, determinable on September 29, 1944, by 12 months' notice, the tenant agreeing to pay “the rent hereby reserved or any additional rents or any rent substituted therefor by agreement or by arbitration under section 12 of the
On September 5, 1968, the present landlord served on the defendant a notice to quit under section 24 (2) (g) of the Act of 1948, on the ground that B. “the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy under which you hold” was made had died within three months of the giving of the notice. The defendant contended that the notice was bad in that B. was not the person with whom the contract of tenancy under which the defendant held the land had been made. The landlord, by originating summons, sought a declaration that the notice was good. Buckley J. upheld the defendant's contention, holding that the 1968 agreement had, on its true construction, brought into being a new tenancy agreement at a new rent, as had previously the 1961 agreement. The landlord appealed:—
Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that the agreements of 1961 and 1968 did not show any intention to create a new contract of tenancy; on the contrary, they were drawn, and it was the intention of the parties, to achieve continuation of the 1941 tenancy, the parties adhering to the relationship of privity of estate (post, pp. 678C–D, 679G–H, 680F–H).
(2) That a mere agreement between landlord and tenant for an increase in rent did not necessarily result in a surrender of the existing tenancy and the creation of a new tenancy; and the fact that in 1961 and 1968 the landlord and tenant entered into a contractual relationship regarding the rent did not convert the relationship of landlord and tenant by privity of estate into a relationship of contractual landlord and tenant so as to constitute a new letting (post, p. 682G–H) accordingly the contract of tenancy made with B. as tenant remained in existence at the time of his death and the notice to quit given within three months thereafter was a valid notice.
Per curiam. In any event a revision of the rent of an agricultural holding as envisaged by section 8 of the Act of 1948 (whether such revision be settled by arbitration or by agreement in lieu of arbitration) does not of itself involve the creation of a new contract of tenancy.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court:
Baker v. Merckel [
Doe d. Monck v. Geekie (
Donellan v. Read (
Gable Construction Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [
Inchiquin (Lord) v. Lyons (
Joseph v. Joseph [
Savile Settled Estates, In re [
Sellar v. Read (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Clarke v. Hall [
Greater London Council v. Connolly [
Kelly v. Patterrson (
Phillips v. Miller (
APPEAL from Buckley J.
On November 15, 1941, by a written tenancy agreement, a landlord, Samuel John March, agreed to let to Humphrey Robinson and Barnard Stephen Bush an agricultural holding of 107.325 acres, part of Scamperdale Farm, Edenbridge, Kent, for a term of three years from September 29, 1941, determinable on September 29, 1944, by not less than 12 months' notice, at a rent of £198 10s. per annum. By clause 1 the tenants agreed to pay the rent thereby reserved or any additional rents or any rent substituted therefor by agreement or by arbitration under the
On November 25, 1961, the then landlord, Jenkin Rees Lewis, and the defendant entered into a written agreement headed “Memorandum of agreement” for increase of rent part Scamperdale Farm … Date of tenancy agreement: November 15, 1941”; the rent was increased as from September 29, 1961, from £175 to £318 15s. On October 29, 1965, a further 9.777 acres was surrendered to the landlord and the rent reduced as from September 29, 1965, to £282 3s. On March 11, 1968, the same parties entered into a further written agreement for increase of rent to £450 as from September 29, 1968, the agreement being in similar terms to the 1961 agreement. Colonel Robinson died in 1945 and Bush died on June 19, 1968. On September 5, 1968, the plaintiff company, being then the landlord, served a notice to quit on the defendant under section 24 (2) (g) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The plaintiff company, by originating summons, asked the court to determine whether the notice was valid and effectively determined the tenancy and for an order for possession if the notice were held to be valid.
Buckley J. on December 11, 1969, decided that the 1961 and 1968 agreements were new tenancy agreements at new rents reserved by the landlord out of new terms then granted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Friends' Provident Life Office v British Railways Board
-
Cyril Lawrence Spencer and Another v The Secretary of State for Defence
...(or indeed extending the term of the tenancy) effects a surrender of the original tenancy and a re-grant of a new tenancy: see Jenkin R Lewis & Son Ltd v Kerman [1971] Ch. 477 at 496and Friends' Provident Life Office v British Railways Board [1996] 1 All ER 336at 342e – 345c. Accordingly, t......
-
PW & Company v Milton Gate Investments Ltd
...creates an estate does sometimes produce results which do not accord with the plain contractual intention of parties. Thus, in Jenkin R Lewis & Son Ltd -v-Kerman [1971] Ch. 477 at 496B to F, the Court of Appeal emphasised that a landlord and tenant cannot vary a lease by adding land to the ......
-
Maurice Edward Henwood v Peter Thomas Galton Copeland
...It is clear that there can be an agreed surrender of part of land in a demise without affecting the rest of the demise: cf Jenkin R Lewis & Son Ltd v Kerman [1971] Ch 477, CA, 492B. It is a question of fact. There was no evidence that the parties intended a surrender and re-grant. I find t......