Villarosa v Ryan

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. A notice purportedly served on the respondent landlord under s 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in respect of a flat was held to be valid. The notice had been served by the executors of the deceased tenant's will, purportedly in the exercise of their right to claim a lease extension on the basis that they had been the qualifying tenant of the flat for the whole of the two-year period preceding its service (namely since they had been granted probate). The executors had transferred the lease to the appellant and had assigned the notice to her. In allowing the appellant's appeal against the county court's decision that the notice was invalid, the Chancery Division ruled that, on the true construction of s 42 of the Act, as amended, the limitation imposed by sub-s (4A) (which provided that a notice under s 42 could not be given by the personal representatives of a tenant later than two years after the grant of probate or letters of administration) only applied to a notice served by a personal representative which relied on the special provision in s 39(3A) of the Act, but that the limitation did not apply to a notice served by a personal representative which satisfied the general requirement in s 39(2) of the Act.

Category: