21 Feb 2005
Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and raised an arguable point of law that the Lands Tribunal failed to address the claim for possession on the basis of unlawful subletting; no order as to costs was made.
18 Jan 1983
An unrebutted factual change from sole tenancy to occupation by the named tenant plus six additional occupants (even blood relatives) constitutes a prima facie apparent change of occupancy under s.53(3); once established and not rebutted, the tenant is deemed to have sublet and the landlord is entitled to possession.
14 Oct 1981
On the undisputed facts—no contractual prohibition on subletting and no allegation the subletting extended beyond the head-lease term—the statutory cause of action under s53(2)(e) does not presently arise during the original contractual term due to s74A(aa); the claim is therefore premature and discloses no reasonable cause of action.
25 May 1981
The court held that Part II creates a statutory continuance of the contractual term (not a replacement statutory tenancy) so waiver by the landlord during the contractual term survives into the statutory continuance; facts arising during the contractual term (even if not then actionable) may be relied on to establish waiver after expiry; applying these principles the plaintiff's ground of unlawful subletting failed and, on balance of hardship and the 'manifestly not just and equitable' test, the plaintiff's claim for possession for occupation also failed.
15 Oct 1980
The tenant must prove on the civil standard that, considering all circumstances, it would be thoroughly unjust to make an order for possession under s53(2)(b)(i); if the tenant only shows the merits are evenly balanced the tenant has not discharged the burden and the possession order should follow once the landlord proves reasonable requirement.
15 Jul 1980
Although the landlord established a reasonable requirement for the premises for himself and his wife, the court exercised its discretion and dismissed the possession claim because eviction would be inequitable in light of the tenant's very long tenancy since 1966 and the significant hardship to a large family; landlord awarded rent arrears only.