Iqbal& Ors v Thakrar & Anor

Iqbal& Ors v Thakrar & Anor

The landlords' refusal of consent was not unreasonable because the tenants' plans did not specify how structural issues, particularly regarding load-bearing walls and piers, would be addressed. The lease did not demise the exterior main wall to the tenants, so the landlords could refuse alterations to it. The Recorder erred in finding the refusal unreasonable and in her construction of the lease.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Iqbal; Claimant/respondent: Omar Farook Khan; Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Suleman Khan; Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Abdul Koriem Khan; Defendant/appellant: Rishi Thakrar; Defendant/appellant: Rupa Thakrar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declarations discharged
Legal Topics
Reasonableness of Withholding Consent, Structural Alterations Under Lease, Construction of Lease Terms
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Reasonableness of Withholding Consent Structural Alterations Under Lease Construction of Lease Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Iqbal

Claimant/respondent

Omar Farook Khan

Claimant/respondent

Mohammed Suleman Khan

Claimant/respondent

Mohammed Abdul Koriem Khan

Claimant/respondent

Rishi Thakrar

Defendant/appellant

Rupa Thakrar

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's refusal of consent to proposed structural alterations was unreasonable under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the shop front included the exterior main wall under the lease
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in her assessment of the landlord's reasons for refusal

Ratio Decidendi

The landlords' refusal of consent was not unreasonable because the tenants' plans did not specify how structural issues, particularly regarding load-bearing walls and piers, would be addressed. The lease did not demise the exterior main wall to the tenants, so the landlords could refuse alterations to it. The Recorder erred in finding the refusal unreasonable and in her construction of the lease.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declarations discharged

Orders

  • Respondents to pay appellants' costs, including costs below, up to 15th March
  • Respondents to pay 75% of appellants' costs after 15th March