Statutes
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1938.tb00401.x |
| Date | 01 September 1938 |
| Published date | 01 September 1938 |
160
MODERN LAW REVIEW
Sept.,
1938
STATUTES
This
Act furnishes yet another example of
a
legal reform of considerable
social
importance
introduced by a
private
Member. The
basic
object
is
to
prevent the exploitation
of
tenants by
landlords
serving
on
them stringent
schedules of dilapidations with the object of forcing the
tenants
to
pur-
chase
the reversions under threat of forfeiture or actions
for
damages.
It
is
unfortunately
within
the knowledge of every solicitor that schedules
of dilapidations frequently refer
to
repairs and redecorationS, many of
which the tenant is probably under
no
obligation
to
carry
out
or
which,
even
if
he
is
under a legal obligation
to
do them, are not really
necessary.
In
the
case
of a large property let
at
a
rack rent,
this
does little
harm,
since
the tenant
is
in
as
strong a position
as
the landlord-indeed, while
as
at
present the general tendency is for rents to
fall,
he
is
in
a
stronger
position, since he knows that the last thing
that
the landlord
wishes
to
do
is
to
forfeit the lease.
The
tenant is able to employ a lawyer and,
if
necessary,
a surveyor to deal with the matter
on
his behalf, and
as
a result
of negotiations between the
parties
and their advisers, the repairs which
the tenant eventually carries out
will
probably
bear
little resemblance
to
those originally included in the schedule of dilapidations. But
as
regards
small property, the position
is
very different. The landlord may
be
a
rich
man or corporation
;
the tenant
will
probably be a poor
man
who
is
unable
to
spend money
on
professional assistance. The rents of
smaller
propertiiee
have
been
maintained,
and
in
the
case
of many
leases
the rents payable
are substantially less than those which could
be
obtained
on
reletting.
It
has
therefore not
been
uncommon.
particularly in the provinces,
for
the landlord
to
serve
on
the tenant
a
lengthy schedule of flapidations
and
to
indicate that, unless
this
is complied with or
unless
the tenant
likes
to
purchase the reversion
at
a
named (and generally excessive) price,
step
will
be taken
to
forfeit the
lease.
Of
course, the tenant already
has
the protection of
8s.
146 and 147 of the Law of
Property
Act, 1925, under
which the landlord
has
to
serve a notice specifying the alleged breach,
requiring
it
to be remedied
if
capable of remedy, and asking for
com-
pensation
if
desired; while even
if
this
notice
is
not complied with, the
tenant can apply
to
the
Court
for relief from forfeiture. But the
tenant
is
probably ignorant of
his
legal rights, and
in
any
case
these
sections
do
not apply if, instead
of
forfeiture, an action for damages
is
threatened.
In
such a
case
his
only protection
is
the rule that the damages recoverable
are not
to
exceed the diminution in the value of the reversion
owing
to
the breach (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927,
s.
18
(I)
).
Threats
of
this
latter nature
are
available
in
a wider
class
of case, e.g. to long
leases
under
which
a
ground rent only
is
payable; these normally
contain
a right
of
re-entry only
on
breach
of
the covenant
to
pay rent, but they
contain
Csrtsin,
though admittedly limited, covenants
to
repair, and an
action
for damages
can
be threatened
on
an alleged breach of these.
The
new
Act
which came
into
effect
on
the
23rd
June applies
to
houses
of
a
rateable value of
d100
or
less,
held for a
term
of
which five
years
or
more remain unexpired. The Act applies
to
a
house
notwithstanding
that
part
thereof
is
used
as
a
shop
or
office, or for business trade or
pro-
fessional purposes, and
it
relates
to
leases
whenever created and
to
breaches
of covenant or agreement
to
put or
keep
the house
in
repair during the
To continue reading
Request your trial