Can the landlord take the property back???

[martin_n]

Hi,

I am renting a commercial property with only 5 years left with the current lease. I am thinking to approach the landlord to renew the lease but would like to know if the landlord is allowed to take the property back after the current lease or he has to renew it to me.

If he can then I guess nothing I can do and we would lose out a lot.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[yeahbutno]

Unless your lease is specifically written outside of the terms of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, then no you can't be evicted you will have a right to a new lease of the same length and on the same terms as your old one on expiry. The only difference will be that the landlord can charge the market rent at that time.

The above does assume that you haven't breached any of the lease covenants, and pay your rent on time!

Have a good look over your lease. If the L&T has been excluded, it should be pretty obvious even to the untrained eye. If you're still unsure, it is worth paying an expert to look it over to be certain.

Five years ahead seems an awful long time to be planning for a renewal! You must be really consciencious with your tax returns eh? :D Seriously - unless you're looking for some vastly different terms in your lease, leave things for a few years!

[Tax Accountant]

I am not an expert on this subject but my understanding is that there are a couple of exceptions whereby a landlord does not have to renew a lease.

One such exception is if he wants the property for his own use.

Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Ramnik

[yeahbutno]

Yes - I believe you are correct, but I think the landlord has to meet some very strict criteria. Unless the landlord has mooted it in this case, I doubt there's any reason to believe that this is likely to happen.

I'm not an expert on the development rules though - maybe others can elaborate?

[Editor]

The landlord can refuse to renew a commercial lease, but only on very limited grounds and it's not a process to be taken on lightly as it can be long drawn out and expensive.

Grounds to refuse to grant a new lease.


Tenant not paying rent or other breaches of covenant, but these would need to be sustantial failures.
Where the landlord can provide suitable and acceptable alternative accommodation
Where the Landlord wishes to demolish or develop the property
Where a sub-tenant occupying part of the premises applies for a new lease, but the landlord wants to let or sell the premises as a whole
Where the Landlord wants to use the property for his own use - business or residence

In the last two the Landlord would have to pay compensation to the Tenant based on a fixed formula laid down in the Act.

If the Landlord wishes to occupy the property himself he would have had to have owned the freehold for five years.

If the landlord builds a case for possession on a sham and subsequently does not carry through with his stated intentions, then the tenant can come back later of more compensation.