Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
Savva and Savva v Hussein (1997) 73 P. & C.R. 150
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture
In 1991, the landlords granted a twelve-year lease of commercial premises to the respondent. The respondent changed the signage and installed a flue through the roof of the property, both of which were in breach of the terms of the lease. The landlords served notice for breaching the agreement and therefore forfeiting the lease in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925, section 146. The landlords also claimed for damages and trespass in relation to the flue. The respondent claimed that the landlords were in breach of their covenant as they had not kept the property in good repair. The trial judge found in favour of the respondent, ordered the landlords to repair the damage and assigned two months’ rent to the respondent in damages. The landlord subsequently appealed the decision.
The court was required to decide whether the respondent’s behaviour was enough to warrant an order of forfeiture under the Law of Property Act 1925, or, whether the landlord was required to carry out the repairs on the building. It was also for the court to decide whether the flue, which ran into the roof and air-space, could be considered as trespass.
The court dismissed the landlord’s appeal. It was held that the issues caused by the respondent’s behaviour were capable of remedy and therefore it had not breached the Law of Property Act 1925, section 146 and no forfeiture was required, despite the flue technically being considered as a trespass. The court agreed that the trial judge was right to award damages to the respondent.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: