The following Property guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Where a tenant holds over after the expiry of an existing tenancy, it is an open question whether the circumstances, including any payment of rent, show that the parties had agreed to enter into a new tenancy. If one party allows another into possession of his land on payment of rent, failing more, the inference sensibly and reasonably to be drawn is that the parties intended to create a periodic tenancy. However, the court has repeatedly found that the presumption of a new periodic tenancy is rebutted where the tenant goes into occupation, or holds over, while the terms of a new contracted-out lease are being negotiated, holding instead that the parties intended to create a tenancy at will. This distinction is crucial because a periodic tenancy is afforded security of tenure under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Pt II (LTA 1954), whereas a tenancy at will is not.
The leading case is Javad v Aqil, where Aqil was allowed into occupation of business premises in anticipation of terms being agreed for a new ten-year lease. Aqil occupied and paid rent on a quarterly basis before negotiations for the new lease broke down and the landlord ordered him to leave. The landlord's solicitors had got to the stage of sending engrossments of the lease and a completion
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234