Can landlords evict tenants for repairs?

Repairing with occupied tenants is a nightmare for landlords and tenants; can landlords demand that tenants leave for the duration of repair work?

The question is particularly pertinent because of the need to refurbish rental accommodation with the approaching EPC “C” deadline in 2030. The relevant case is MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] 

By Tom Entwistle, LandlordZONE

A collapsed ceiling and seven rotten joists

The building in question was 1/1A The Drapery in Northampton, a mixed-use property with two commercial units on the ground floor, a large loading bay, and 25 residential flats above. 

It was occupied by the defendant tenant, The Drapery Northampton Ltd under a 999-year lease granted in December 1998. MSA Properties Limited acquired the freehold reversion on the building in 2017.

In August 2022, part of the loading bay ceiling collapsed beneath two flats of the flats, Nos 16 and 17. The collapse exposed serious water damage and revealed a number of the structural timber joists supporting the first-floor flats that were rotted. It was agreed by both freeholder and tenant that the joists needed remediation, but it was the method of repair that was in dispute. 

MSA's position was that six of the seven joists required full replacement and that this could only be done safely by working from above. That meant stripping out bathrooms, floor finishes and partition walls in the two affected flats, and the residential tenants would have to move out for a period estimated at 10 weeks.

The tenant argued otherwise. The joists they argued could be repaired from beneath rather than replaced, and that even if replacement were necessary, the work could be completed from the loading bay below, without disturbing the flats at all.

This article refers to the position in England. The case concerned a long residential lease rather than an assured tenancy, but the principles apply generally to all landlord and tenant case law applicable in England.

This article is intended as general information for landlords and letting agents and does not constitute legal advice. Landlords facing a similar dispute should seek advice from an solicitor experienced in landlord and tenant law.

Repair covenant versus quiet enjoyment

The case turned on how two competing obligations in the lease could be resolved. The landlord's covenant to repair and renew the structure and the tenant's covenant for quiet enjoyment seemed in complete opposition. These are common lease obligations in these circumstances, and a resolution is needed to be found.

Mutually exclusive

Both obligations were covered in the same clause of the lease, which the judge, Elizabeth O'Neill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court), took as a sign that the parties never intended the two to be mutually exclusive.

A governing authority on the issue is Century Projects Limited v Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited [2014], in which case the judge held that, where more than one method of repair is available, the choice is primarily the landlord's — but that choice is not “untrammelled,” meaning not a completely free choice.

A landlord with premises let for a particular purpose, and subject to a covenant for quiet enjoyment, cannot carry out repairs however it likes regardless of the impact on the tenant. 

Neither covenant, according to the judge’s ruling, trumps the other; a landlord acting reasonably can carry out the work, but reasonableness must be demonstrated; it cannot be assumed.

The tenant tried to push its argument further, relying on the older test case of McGreal v Wake [1984] that a landlord can never lawfully choose a method requiring vacation unless that is the only method physically possible. 

The court rejected this reading as McGreal. The judge explained this was a different situation, and treating the two questions as one would, in the judge's words, “risk confining landlords to permanent piecemeal patching on long leases”, since a more comprehensive solution would always be resisted on the basis that a lesser one was theoretically available. 

Goldmile Properties Ltd v Lechouritis was deemed more appropriate where “all reasonable precautions", not “all possible precautions”, apply.

Entitled to choose

A freeholder facing genuine structural disrepair is entitled to choose the more disruptive method of repair, even if one, as in this case, requires long-leaseholders to vacate their homes for weeks.

This entitlement is provided the choice is reasonable and backed by proper evidence. That is the effect of a High Court ruling handed down in this case, MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026]. 

It’s a case that goes to the heart of the issue that every landlord with an occupied building will sometimes meet: the covenant to repair set against the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Although the MSA case involved a long residential lease rather than an assured tenancy, the underlying principle applies. For whenever a landlord's repairing obligation comes up against a tenant's right to occupy undisturbed, the court set out a careful framework, one that any landlord is able to reference if a similar dispute reaches a tribunal or court

Why did the court prefer the freeholder's evidence?

Much of this trial turned on competing structural engineer’s evidence, and the judgement is useful in illustrating what a court expects from an expert witness in a repair dispute.

MSA's expert had inspected the joists closely, using an instrument to determine the extent of degradation of the timber due to rot, and had fully engaged with a specialist mycologist's reports on the fungal rot. 

The tenant's expert, by contrast, had carried out a more limited inspection and had not sought further access even though the court's earlier order had provided for it and had not addressed all the available mycologist evidence. 

The judge therefore found the tenant's expert's evidence “less comprehensive and less helpful than it might otherwise have been” as a result and preferred MSA's evidence throughout.

The finding

On that basis, the court found that six of the seven joists genuinely required full replacement rather than localised repair. More significantly, it accepted MSA's evidence that even repair work, not full joist replacement, could only be carried out safely and effectively from above.

The court did, however, qualify its ruling by stating that MSA’s claiming it needed ten weeks of exclusive possession was excessive and six weeks was sufficient once the evidence was properly tested. It also said that a shorter, non-exclusive right of entry for a preliminary inspection was sufficient, rather than the two days of exclusive possession MSA had sought for that purpose. 

The judge also found MSA in breach of its own repairing covenant for leaving the ceiling free of fire-retardant material for a period. Deliberately leaving the ceiling exposed as leverage to pressure the tenant into agreeing the substantive works were not acceptable. 

What all this means in practice

If you find yourself dealing with a similar dispute, which comes to court or tribunal, whether commercial or residential property, this judgement offers a fairly clear checklist of what a court will look for:

Instruct a qualified expert (a chartered structural surveyor) who inspects closely, tests the actual condition of the structure, and engages fully with any specialist reports (mycology, damp, structural) already available. A superficial inspection weakens the evidence a court can rely on.

Set out your reasoning for the chosen method of repair in writing and share it with the tenant before proceedings become necessary. The court placed a lot of weight on MSA having explained its position and the advice behind it on several occasions.

The obligation is to act reasonably and to take the tenant's interests into account, not to secure consent to the chosen method.

Be realistic, not overgenerous to yourself on how long access is actually needed. In this case the court cut MSA's ten-week claim to six weeks, once it tested the underlying schedule of works.  

Keep any interim safety measures up to date regardless of the state of negotiations. Leaving a hazard unaddressed or exposed in an unsafe condition as leverage, as in this dispute, did not impress the court. It deemed this behaviour unreasonable, even though it did not cost the landlord the case.

Pay attention to the lease wording on repair and access clauses in long leases specifically. The breadth of MSA's entry clause, covering works it “may or must” carry out, supported its position. A narrower drafting could have produced a different result.