Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law

Insights
This document is from our archive and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.

Property Law - Pirabakaran v. Patel & another

Area(s) of Law :
Property Law
Court : Court of Appeal
Source : EWCA Civ 685

R landlord A tenant- lease of premises of shop, with residential flat above- lease protected by Part II Landlord and Tenant Act 1954- R exercised right of re-entry for non-payment of rent- locks on shop changed- access to flat by separate door- possession proceedings taken in respect of flat- A charged with criminal damage to flat, and R changed the locks- A sought injunction to restrain R from excluding him from the flat- A argued forfeiture of shop unlawful, as prohibited by s.2 Protectoin from Eviction Act 1977- question whether premises which were partly commercial and partly residential were “let as a dwelling” for the purposes of the Act- J decided not and, in light of the criminal damage, refused relief from forfeiture- tenant appealed:-

Held: Appeal allowed. “let as a dwelling” meant let wholly or partly as a dwelling. This was the effect of s.31 Rent Act 1965, which was the precursor to s.2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Moreover, where there was an issue as to whether a tenant might or might not be entitled to relief from forfeiture in respect of his home, it was better that this issue should be decided before rather than after eviction.