Piper v Muggleton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0424-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 24 April 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0424-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Jenkins
Lord Justice Hodson and
Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob
In the Matter of the Landlord & Tenant Act, 1954
In the Matter of Premises known as part of 94 Common Road, Wombourn, Saffordshsire
MR. N. C. H. BROWNE-WILKINSON (for Mr. R. Geoffray Greene), instructed by Messrs. Stafford Clark & Co., agents for Messrs. William Wright and Son (Dudley), appeared for the Appellant (Applicant).
MR. JOHN G. S. HOBSON, instructed by Messrs. Sharpe, Pritchard & Co., agents for Messrs. H. Ernest Sargent & Son (Wolverhampton), appeared for the Respondent (Respondent).
The Judgment I am about to read is the Judgment of the court.
In this case the appellant, Miss Helen Piper, appliedto the Woverhampton County Court under section 24(1) of the Landlord & Tenant Act, 19554, for a new tenancy of premises comprising a part of the shop on the ground floor of 94 Common Road, Wombourn, Staffordshsire, Joining as respondent to her application Mr. Bard Muggleton, the respondent in the present appeal, who occupies the remainder of 94 Common Road including the part of the shop nnot occupied by Miss Piper, No.94 comprises in addition to the shop already mentioned living accommodation behind and above it. Mr. Muggleton occupies his part of the premises as his dwellinghouse, using his part of the shop for the purposes of his business as a plumber, while Miss Piper occupies her part of the sho for the purposes of her business as a dealer in fancy goods and the like. At the date of Miss Piper's application (namely 14th Decemnber, 1955) Mr Muggleton was a contractual weekly tenant of the entirety of No.94, his immediate landlords being a Mr. and Mrs. Brookers, and Miss Piper was paying Mr. Muggleton the weekly sum of 7s.6d. in respect of the part of the shop occupied by her. On the footing that Miss Piper's occupation of her part of the ship was that of a tenant and not merely that of a licensee (a point which has been the subject of some controversy) it seems reasonably plaint that as matters then stood Miss Piper's tenancy of her part of the shop was a tenancy to which Part II of the Act applied (see section 23) and that Mr. Muggleton was in relaltion to that tenancy "the landlord" within the meaning of Part II of the Act.
Miss Piper's application had been preceded by a notice to her from Mr. Muggleton to terminate her tenancy of her part of the shop pursuant to section 25 of the Act, to which she had duly replied pursuant to the same section notifying Mr. Muggleton that she would not be willing to give up the property comprised in her tenancy at the date of termination. At this stage, therefore, it would seem that (always assumingthat she did have a tenancy of her part of the shop) Miss Piper's application joining Mr. Muggleton as respondent was a properly constituted proceeding under the Act.
In due course Mr. Muggleton lodged an answer dated 5th January, 1956, opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the ground, which had been duly stated in his notice under section 25, that on the termination of the current tenancy he intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him in them, this being ground (g) of the grounds of objection permitted by section 30(1) of the Act. It is not, we think, seriously disputed that if the hearing had taken place at this point of time Mr. Muggleton, being "the landlord" in relationg to Miss Piper's tenancy if such sit was, and not being subject to the disqualification imposed by section 39(2), could have made good this ground of objection, thereby defeating her claim to a new tenancy (see section 31(1)). But the hearing did not take place until 3rd February, 1956, and in the meantime (that is to say on 21st Janualry, 1956) Mr. and Mrs. Brookes gave Mr. Muggleton notice to quit No.94 expiring on 30th January, 1956. There is no dispute as to the validity of that notice, and the result of it was that, inasmuch as No.94 was admittedly a dwellinghouse to which the Rent Acts applield, Mr. Muggleton had by the date of the hearing becomes a cerel statutory tenant, his statutory tenancy extending either to the whole of the premises or to the premises other than the part of the shop occupied by Miss Piper. The change thus brought about in the status of Mr. Muggleton meant that on the former view of the extent of his statutory tenancy Mr. Muggleton at the date of the hearing could only be "the landlord" for the purposes of Part II of the Act if a mere statutory tenant is capable of being "the landlord" for those purposes; while on the latter view of the extent of his statutory tenancy it seems plain that Mr. Muggleton at the date of the hearing could not be"the landlord" for those purposes, since he could not ever claim Rent Act protection in respect 'of the relevant part of the premises, that is to say the part of the shop occupied by Miss Piper. We were told by counsel that Mr. and Mrs. Brookes were duly served with notice of the application; but, as appears from the learned County Court Judge's note, they did not attend, and were not represented, at the hearing.
The learned Judge, with some reluctance, found himself constrained to hold that Miss Piper had a tenancy of her part of the shop and not a mere licence to occupy it. In the circumstances, we do not see how he could well have held otherwise. We think the part of the shop of which Miss Piper had exclusive possession was sufficiently defined to make it in law a possible subject of a tenancy. As we understand the plan with which we have been supplied, it consisted of an area bounded by and including one of the two shop windows and a counter running from the window to a point four feet or so from the back wall, and connected with the back wall by a low barrier and wicket gate. The whole space between the counter and barrier and the side wall of the shop behind them was in the exclusive occupation of Miss Piper, We do not think the possibility of a tenancy is negatived by the circumstance that the area between Miss Piper's part and the counter standing on Mr, Muggleton's part was used In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meah v Mouskos
...freeholder. I can feel no difficulty about that. That is, indeed, recognised in the case to which we were referred, in this court of Piper -v- Muggleton (1956, 2 Q.B.D. p. 669). That was a different case. There the person who satisfied the definition of "landlord" at the beginning of the pr......
-
Parsons v George
...the execution of the transfer to Mrs Purcell on 23 April 2003, she became the landlord as so defined. This reflects the decision in Piper v Muggleton [1956] 2 QB 569, 578 where Jenkins LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said that it is necessary that at every stage of the proceedings the......
-
Morrow v Nadeem
...and four months after service of the section 25 notice. To such an application the relevant landlord would be a necessary party (see Piper v. Muggleton [1956] 2 Q.B. 569). The information needed by the tenant for those purposes will include information as to the identity of the landlord for......