Mills v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SALMON,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE CROSS |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J1106-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 November 1970 |
[1970] EWCA Civ J1106-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: His Honour Judge Chope - Launceston County Court)
Lord Justice Salmon
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Cross
Mr, S.L. TUCKEY (instructed by Messrs. Boxall & Boxall, Agents for Messrs. R. Hancock & Son, Callington. Cornwall) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
Mr. N.J. INGLIS-JONES (instructed by Messrs. Bower. Cotton & Bower,. Agents for Messrs. Bond, Pearce & Co., Plymouth) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
The plaintiffs are the owners of an agricultural holding known as The Almshouse, Stoke Climsland. The defendant has for some time been the tenant of that agricultural holding. His is a yearly tenancy at a rent of £100 a year. According to the record before us, no other terms were expressly A agreed. However, the law writes certain terms into that tenancy. I refer to Statutory Instrument 1948 No. 184, the first clause of which reads as follows (in so far as it is relevant): "The provisions set forth in the Schedule hereto relating to the maintenance [and] repair…of fixed equipment shall be deemed to be incorporated in every contract of tenancy of a holding…"; and the holding there referred to is an agricultural holding such as the present. I then turn to the Schedule. Part I is headed "Rights and liabilities of the landlord". Paragraph 1 (1) (omitting immaterial words) reads as follows: "To execute all repairs and replacements to the under mentioned parts of the farmhouse, cottages and farm buildings, namely: main walls and exterior walls, including walls of open and covered yards and garden walls…roofs, including eaves-guttering and downpipes…and floors, doors and windows… Provided that in the case of repairs and replacements to floor-boards, doors, windows, eaves-guttering and downpipes, the landlord may recover one-half of the reasonable cost thereof from the tenant".
So under that statutory provision which is written into the tenancy the landlords were entitled to carry out the repairs referred to in the Schedule, and on their carrying out those repairs the tenant became liable to pay half their reasonable cost.
On the 26th September, 1968, the landlords served a notice to quit on the tenant requiring him to vacate the holding on the 29th September, 1969- I shall have to refer to that notice in F more detail later. After the 29th September, 1969, the landlords instituted proceedings in the County Court to recover possession of the holding. The County Court judge found against the landlords, on the ground that the notice to quit was invalid, and it is from that decision that the landlords now appeal.
It is plain that, in the case of any tenancy terminable by notice and governed by the common law, providing a clear and unambiguous notice to quit is served which complies with the requirements of the tenancy agreement, the landlord acquires a right to possession on the expiry of the notice: the tenant must then go - and he goes, of course, without any question of compensation arising. The position, however, is strikingly different in relation to agricultural tenancies. The Legislature has given a large measure of protection to tenants of agricultural holdings by imposing very real restrictions upon the rights which a landlord can acquire by serving notices to quit. I must read section 24 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as amended. Sub-section 1 of section 24 reads as follows (I again omit irrelevant words): "Where a notice to quit an agricultural holding…is given to the tenant thereof, and not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit the tenant serves on the landlord a counter-notice in writing requiring that this sub-section shall apply to the notice to quit, then, subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section, the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consent to the operation thereof". So that means that if a notice to quit which at common law would be effective to terminate the tenancy is served on the tenant of an agricultural holding, he can, of course, obey the notice and go, just as the ordinary common law tenant can, but if, however, he desires to take advantage of the protection afforded to him by the Act and he serves a counter-notice, the landlord cannot get him out without the consent of the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
But the Agricultural Land Tribunal can only give their consent to the notice being effective if the circumstances set out in section 25 of the Act are satisfied; and that reads as follows. (Again I shall read no more of this section than is necessary). "The Agricultural Land Tribunal shall consent under the last foregoing section to the operation of a notice to quit an agricultural holding…if, but only if, they are satisfied as to one or more of the following matters, being a matter or matters specified by thelandlord in his application for their consent, that is to say - (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of good husbandry…; or (b) that the carrying out thereof is desirable in the interests of sound management…; or (c) that the carrying out thereof is desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration…; or (d) that greater hardship would be caused by withholding than by giving consent to the operation of the notice; or (e) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use other than for agriculture…" Then there is a proviso "that, notwithstanding that they are satisfied as aforesaid, the Tribunal shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession".
If the Tribunal refuses their consent, the notice, of course, is of no effect. If the Tribunal give their consent, and if the tenant goes out, and if indeed he goes out voluntarily the matter never having gone to the Tribunal, he acquires a right to compensation under section 34 of the Act.
So section 24 (1), coupled with section 25 and section 34, lays down the effect of the landlord serving an ordinary common law notice to quit.
Sub-section 2 of section 24, in so far as it is material to this case, reads as follows: "The foregoing sub-section shall not apply where…(d) at the date of the giving of the notice to quit the tenant had failed to comply with a notice in writing served on him by the landlord requiring him within two months from the service of the notice to pay any rent due in respect of the agricultural holding to which the notice to quit relates or within such reasonable period as was specified in the notice to remedy any breach by the tenant that was capable of being remedied of any term or condition of his tenancy which was not inconsistent with the fulfillment of his responsibilities to farm in accordance withthe rules of good husbandry, and it is stated in the notice to quit that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid".
So that if a tenant of an agricultural holding receives a notice to quit under section 24 (2) he is in an entirely different position from the position in which he would be if the notice were served tinder section 24 (1).
Under section 24 (2), if he wishes to dispute the reasons which the landlord is setting out in the notice as entitling the landlord to possession, the tenant applies for arbitration in accordance with article 9 of Statutory Instrument 1964 No. 706, which is in these terms: "Where it is stated in a notice to quit an agricultural holding or part thereof that the notice is given for one or more of the reasons specified in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of section 24 (2) of the 1948 Act and the tenant wishes to contest any of the reasons so stated, he shall within one month after the service of the notice serve on the landlord notice in writing requiring the question to be determined by arbitration under the 1948 Act". If the landlord establishes the reasons given in his notice, then the tenant goes, and he goes without any right to compensation. Of course, if the landlord cannot establish any of those reasons given in the notice the tenant stays.
Now, quite apart from authority, it seems to me obvious that the notice to quit served by the landlord should make it plain to the tenant whether it is being served under sub-section 1 or subsection 2 of section 24, because the rights and obligations of the tenant are quite different according as to whether the notice is being served on him under the one sub-section or the other. Ct seems to me that, if the notice is ambiguous, like any other ambiguous notice to quit it is wholly invalid and can be treated as so much waste-paper.
This principle was clearly laid down in this Court in the case of ( Cowan v. Wrayford 1953 Weekly Law Reports 1340). That was a case in which the landlord served a notice to quit on the 5th December, 1952. This notice stated that it was being servedunder section 24 (2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act on the ground that the tenant had failed to comply with a notice dated 29th September, 1951, calling upon him to remedy certain breaches of his tenancy agreement within a certain time. The tenant remained in occupation and did nothing. The landlord commenced proceedings in the County Court, but the judge held that the landlord could not obtain an order for possession inasmuch as the notice to quit had been served before the expiration of the time within which the notice of the 29th September called upon the tenant to remedy the breaches of the tenancy agreement. The landlord then argued...
To continue reading
Request your trial