Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 - excluded clauses

[johnsimpson]

Hi there ..can anyone help, we are totally confused. Upon drawing up a lease for a small retail shop we own, we were advised to seek a County Court Order excluding Clauses 24 and 25. Which we did.

Now, looking back, we can't make head of tail of the implications (sorry, but we are new to this). It seems to read both ways.

If both parties have agreed that the provisions of clauses 24 and 25 should be excluded from the tenancy, does this mean that we (the Landlords) still have the right to terminate the tenancy after the 5 years of the lease (we are considering redeveloping the premises to increase the retail space by 100%) or are we bound to offer an extension of the Tenancy?

Any advice gratefully accepted
kind regards
John Simpson

[daveyjp]

If you are definately going to redevelop this is a ground for refusing a new tenancy whether the tenancy is within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act or not. Being outside of the Act means the landlord is in a stonger position as the tenant has no legal right to 'hold over' on an existing lease, or be entitled to a new one, or be able to claim compensation from the Landlord should a new tenancy be refused on the grounds of redevelopment.

[Paul_f]

If the lease has been excluded from the provisions of the L & T Act 1954 then there is no need to do anything other than terminate the lease by giving notice to quit when the time comes. Redevelopment has nothing to do with an excluded lease.