上诉法院判决：承租案
Landlord and Tenant — Security of tenure — Premises let for business use with residential accommodation — Cesser of business use — Whether “let as a separate dwelling — Whether tenant enjoying protection as regulated tenant — Rent Act 1977, ss 1, 2, 24(3)
Tan and another v Sitkowski [2007] EWCA Civ 30
CA: Ward and Thomas LJJ, and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: 1 February 2007
A house that was let for mixed business and residential uses did not entitle the tenant, on ceasing to carry on his business, to claim protection under the Rent Act 1977 in relation to the tenancy.
The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing an appeal by the tenant, Julian Sitkowski, from the judgment of Judge Knight QC in the Central London Civil Justice Centre, upholding a claim by landlords, Phaik Seang Tan and Kit Yeng Tan, for possession of premises at 335, Battersea Bridge Road, London SW11.
In 1970 the tenant, under the terms of an agreement dated 1976, moved into the premises, living with his family on the first floor and carrying on a business on the ground floor. In 1989 he ceased his business use of the ground floor. In 1990 the landlords acquired the premises and served a notice to quit on the tenant. They accepted rent paid by the local authority as housing benefit. Relationships between the parties deteriorated and the landlord brought a successful possession claim in the county court. The tenant appealed on the ground that the judge erred in holding that, following the expiry of the notice to quit, the tenant was not a statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1977.
LORD NEUBERGER said that ss 1 and 2 of the Rent Act 1977 created protected tenancies, to be known as regulated tenancies, that provided security of tenure. By s 24(3) of the Act “A tenancy shall not be a regulated tenancy if it is a tenancy to which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies…” Thus the Act required the tenancy to be of “a dwelling-house … let as a separate dwelling” and not one that was subject to the 1954 Act. The tenant had permanently ceased using any part of the premises in 1989 for business purposes. The landlords argued that premises let partly for a use falling within the 1954 Act and partly for residential purposes (mixed use) did not constitute a “dwelling house … let as a separate dwelling” and the fact that the business use ceased did not enable the tenant to claim the protection. The issue required difficult analysis of the legislation and relevant case law which was often unsatisfactory and inconsistent. The most recent reported case, citing all the relevant authorities, was Patel v Pirabakaran [2006] 1 WLR 3112, CA, where it was held that for the purposes of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 premises let for mixed use were “let as a dwelling”. However the decisions in Pulleng v Curran (1980) 44 P 7 CR 58, CA, Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate [1990] 1 QB 42, CA and Webb v Barnet London Borough Council (1988) 21 HLR 228, CA, were persuasive. They had to lead to the conclusion that the tenant could not claim protection under the 1977 Act because, having been let for mixed business and residential use, the premises were not “let as a separate dwelling” within s1 of that Act.
WARD LJ and THOMAS LJ agreed.
Appearances: The tenant in person; Joshua Swirsky (Newman Law) for the landlords.
Reported by: Harriet Dutton, barrister.
