10
.
11
DEUTS
Mi chi e pasons that legislation would be necessary to
in betoniinate leases.
It
The position with periodic tenancies is different. is now established that they may be of uncertain length provided that it is now at the commencement when the term can be brought
to an end even if it is not known when it will be ended. In
Re Midland Railway's Agreement 1971 Ch 725 an extremely strong Court of Appeal held that an annual tenancy stipulating that the
landlord could terminate it on notice, but with a proviso that he could only do so if and when the premises were required for his own use, was held to be valid. The Court also held that in a periodic tenancy an express curb on the power to terminate was not repugnant
to the nature of the leasehold interest so long as it was not an
attempt to prevent the landlord from ever terminating the tenancy.
Russell L.J. stated the position as follows at p.733:
• •
should be
"It may well be that if in a periodic tenancy an
attempt was made to prevent the lessor ever
determining the tenancy, that would be so inconsistent with the stated bargain that either a greater estate
must be found to have been constituted or the
attempt must be treated as repugnant. But short of that
we see no reason why an express curb
treated as repugnant to the nature of the leasehold
interest granted, In Bream's Property Investment
Co. v. Strovlger 1948 2KB 1 a curb on the lessors for three years unless they required the premises for their
own use was upheld........It follows that in a periodic
tenancy a similar curb for 10, 20 or 50 years should not be rejected as repugnant to the concept of a
periodic tenancy....."
In Centaploy Ltd. v. Matlodge Ltd. 1971 Ch 1, the Court accepted the authority of the previous case but held on the facts that the curb on termination was void because there was no possibility whatsoever of the landlord ever being able to terminate.