The Case Of Harvestica Ltd In The Old Cinema

2028 Words 9 Pages
The third issue is whether Harvestica Ltd can take possession itself of the old cinema in order to convert it into a concert venue. Section 30 of the Act provides that the landlord may oppose requests for renewal of tenancy if the tenant has refused to comply with obligations in respect to repairs, has persistently delayed in paying the rent or has substantially breached his obligations under the tenancy. The landlord can also oppose the renewal if he intends to demolish, reconstruct or use the premises for the purposes of a business conducted by him. Section 31 provides that where the landlord successfully opposes the renewal of tenancy under any of these grounds, the court will make an order granting new tenancy.
In Nursey v P Currie (Dartford)
…show more content…
This intention is determined by a firm and settled intent of occupying the premises and a practical prospect of attaining this intention. The landlords intention to occupy the premises should be within a reasonable period following the termination of the existing lease. Cunliffe v Goodman established the test for intention in respect to ground (g). The court held that the intention requires more than contemplation on the part of the landlord and connotes a state of affairs with reasonable prospects of being able to be attained. In Zarvos v Pradhan the court established the subjective desire and the objective possibility of the landlord’s intention. The subjective desire is the landlords settled commitment to use the property while the objective possibility is the check on reality of actualizing the landlord’s intention.
In Fisher v Taylors Furnishing Stores Ltd it was decided that the intention to occupy the premises after reconstruction cannot be a barrier to opposing renewal of tenancy. The likelihood of obtaining a planning permits is a factor in determining the landlord’s intention. In Gregson v Cyril Lord the court held that in order for the landlord to establish his intention he must not only show his desire to occupy the premises but also demonstrate that his preposition is practical. Failure to obtain planning permits thwarts the landlord’s prospects of using the property and negates his
…show more content…
In Wandsworth LBC v Singh it was held that a recreational park used by the public can be deemed to be in use for the purposes of business when a local authority is being considered. The requirement here is that the open filed should be occupied by the tenant for the purposes of the business and it is not a condition that the business is conducted on the premises. The tenants control and presence on the property as required by the nature of the activity conducted on the open field is sufficient to establish occupation by the tenant. Hancock & Willis v. G.M.S. Syndicate Ltd determined that occupation is not a term that carries a technical meaning and should be construed according to its ordinary sense. Incidental activities carried out on the premises cannot bring the property within the protection of the Act. In Cheryl Investments Ltd v Saldanha, it was held that for activities to be for the purposes of the business, they should be part of the reason or objective of occupying the premises in which the Act applies. Merely occupying the premises and conducting business in the premises does not constitute the use for business purposes under the Act. This position was reaffirmed in Gurton v Parrott where the court said that the question in such a case is not whether the occupation of the property by the tenant was for the purposes of the business but whether

Related Documents