Security of Tenure (LTA 1954) — SQE1 practice question

A landlord owns a parade of shops. One unit is let to a tenant whose lease has nine months left to run; the tenant has always paid on time and has kept the unit in good repair. An investor has offered a substantially higher price for the parade if that unit is sold with vacant possession, and a local agent has advised that the unit would let today well above the passing rent.

On what basis, if any, may the landlord oppose the grant of a new tenancy?

Option A. Incorrect answer. It may oppose on the ground that it intends to sell the unit with vacant possession.
Option B. Incorrect answer. It may oppose on the ground that the unit can be let at a substantially higher rent.
Option C. Incorrect answer. It may oppose on any ground it chooses, provided it gives the full statutory period of notice.
Option D. Correct answer. It has no ground of opposition, because the grounds listed in section 30(1) are exhaustive and none applies.Correct
Option E. Incorrect answer. It may oppose on the ground that the tenant has already had the benefit of the whole contractual term.

Why

The correct answer is D. A landlord may oppose renewal only on one or more of the seven grounds in s.30(1): (a) disrepair resulting from the tenant's breach of its repairing obligations; (b) persistent delay in paying rent; (c) other substantial breaches, or reasons connected with the tenant's use or management of the holding; (d) the offer of suitable alternative accommodation; (e) uneconomic sub-letting of part; (f) demolition or reconstruction; and (g) the landlord's own occupation. The list is exhaustive. Wanting vacant possession to improve a sale price, or a higher rent from someone else, is not a ground, and this tenant has given no cause for the fault grounds. The landlord's realistic options are to negotiate a surrender or to take the open-market rent the court fixes under s.34.

A is incorrect because obtaining vacant possession for a sale is not one of the statutory grounds. B is incorrect because the letting value of the holding is reflected in the rent fixed for the new tenancy, not in a refusal to renew. C is incorrect because the grounds are exhaustive; giving longer notice does not enlarge them. E is incorrect because having had the benefit of the contractual term is not a ground of opposition; that expectation is exactly what Part II displaces.