SOME ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT
| Published date | 01 April 1946 |
| Date | 01 April 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1946.tb00996.x |
42
SOME
ASPECTS
OF
THE
1,AW
OF
LANDIAORD AND TENANT
ONE
of the most important branches of the law is that relating
to landlord and tenant. Its social effects are very great, seeing
that
a
very large proportion of the population is directly
or
indirectly affected. Out of more than nine million dwelling-
houses in England and Wales it would be
a
safe estimate to say
that more than two-thirds are not occupied by their owners
and are let to tenants. In addition, another considerable pro-
portion of the population is concerned either as landlords
or
tenants of industrial premises.
In
view
of
this, it is particularly desirable that, in
so
far as
it
be possible, this branch of law should accord with the current
views
of
justibe and fairness.
It
will be interesting to examine some parts of the law
to
see to what extent it fulfils the desideratum
I
have mentioned.
And first, as regards the right of the tenant to the quiet
enjoyment of the premises.
There is no implied warranty
or
covenant by the landlord
with the tenant on the creation
of
a
tenancy (a) that the land-
lord had
a
good right in all respects to create the tenancy for
the term and according to the tenor thereof, and (b) for quiet
enjoyment against all the world, but only as regards the land-
lord and persons legally claiming under
or
in trust for him.
The following are examples of this rule
:-
(a) Where the property let is in mortgage, and the mortgage
deed contains
a
clause negativing the application
of
section
96
of
the Law of Property Act,
1925,
a lease granted without the
mortgagee’s consent will be void as against the mortgagee.’
(b) Where the landlord being himself a lessee, grants a term
to an under-lessee which is longer than the residue
of
the term
of
the head lease, and the under-tenant is evicted by the
superior landlord on the expiration of the term of the head
lease, the under-tenant has no remedy against anyone. Thus,
in
Baynes
&
Co.
v.
Lloyd
4
Sons’
the defendants had
a
term
of
which eight and a half years were unexpired and granted to
the plaintiffs
a
term of ten years. On the eviction of the plain-
tiffs by the superior landlord it was held that the duration of
1
Keech
v.
Iiall
(1778),
1
Doug.(K.R.)
21.
2
“951
2
K.B.
610,
C.A.
To continue reading
Request your trial