References: [1944] KB 309
Coram: Lord Greene MR
Ratio: The husband tenant had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel leaving behind some of his furniture.
Held: The husband/tenant cannot put an end to the tenancy, even by such acts as delivering the keys to the landlord, so long as his wife remains on the premises: he remains there by her, and so long as he does so, whatever else he does or says, the tenancy remains. The only ways in which a tenant may lose the protection of the Rent Acts are (a) by giving up possession (in which case no order for recovery of possession against him was required) or (b) by having an order of possession made against him. In the case of a licensee of a tenant, the licensee cannot in her own right claim the protection of the Acts, and ‘That proposition is equally true of our Rent Restriction Act and what is stated about a licensee is applicable equally to a sub-tenant. But a sub-tenant car shelter behind the protection afforded to the tenant (his immediate landlord) is that protection has not ceased to exist.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 1314)
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17 July 2018
Ref: 450174
The post Brown v Draper: CA 1944 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.