In Chandless Chandless v Nicholson p739 it was held the court treats a power to

In chandless chandless v nicholson p739 it was held

This preview shows page 19 - 21 out of 32 pages.

In Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson p739, it was held the court treats a powerto forfeit as security for the rent. Generally, on payment of outstanding rent, the court will grant relief but may impose additional conditions considered appropriate such as paying lessor’s costs and expenses. It also stated that the burden of establishing that a forfeiture for non-payment of rent should not be relieved against, is a very heavy burden. In Stieper v Deviot p735, relief was refused because the tenant had exhibited acomplete and persistent disregard of ordinary care to minimize the risk of fire, by storing excessive dangerous and inflammable liquids. In Greenwood Village p737, relief was granted to a tenant who has repaid rent in arrears but has also entered a scheme of arrangement with creditors and may not be able to pay future rent. In Direct Good Supplies p737, relief was refused to a tenant whose position was said to be quite hopeless and there was no or little prospect of rent being paid in the future. Sections 8-10 Landlord and Tenant Act sets a time limit on exercise of the jurisdiction to relieve against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. Relief against forfeiture for breach of covenant other than to pay rent129(2) now extends relief against forfeiture also applies to other breaches of covenants. The court is less reluctant (more likely) to grant relief in these casescompared to forfeiture is for non-payment of rent (Hyman v Rose p738). Generally, relief will not be granted if to do so would prejudice the rights of innocent third parties who have acquired an interest in the leased premises after the forfeiture (Gill v Lewis p740). Plea of set-offCommon Law:A tenant can only withhold rent for the landlord's breaches in covenant if the tenant has paid money to discharge obligations the landlord should have discharged. This includes money paid by the tenant to carry out repairs which the lease required the landlord to carry out (Lee-Parker v Izzet p749).Equitable set-off: Where the tenant is in arrears of rent, but has a claim against the landlord for the landlord's breach of covenant under the lease, the tenant can invoke an equitable right to set-off the landlord's claim for rent in arrears (British Anzani p745). However, mere existence of cross demands is not sufficient. The cross claim must be so directly connected with the demand for rent that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the claimant to recover without taking into account the cross claim (British Anzani p745). The tenant's cross claim must at least arise under the lease itself or directly from the relationship of landlord and tenant created by the lease. Eg: the landlord's covenant to undertake floor repairs was held to have a sufficient connection in British Anzani. This is
Background image
because the floor provisions would obviously have been in the minds of the parties when making the lease agreement. The landlord's covenant did not have to arise from the lease itself, or from the same contract. What is required
Background image
Image of page 21

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 32 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture