Residential tenancy — Registered rent — Substantial works of improvement — Furnished tenancy — Second tenancy — Application for fair rent — Tenants claiming rent paid above registered rent
The respondent company is the owner of a flat in London. A rent of £75 per month for the flat was registered in February 1978 under the Rent Act 1977. When the then statutory tenant left in 1980, the landlords at the time carried out substantial works of improvement to the flat, including providing a new kitchen, hot watersystem, water closet and decorations; they also furnished and recarpeted the flat. In 1983 the appellant tenants were granted a one-year tenancy at a rent of £303.44 per month; a second tenancy was granted in December 1984 at a rent of £312 per month. On the expiration of this tenancy the appellants became statutory tenants and the respondent landlords’ agent made an application for the registration of a fair rent; a rent of £180 per month was registered as from November 1986. The appellant tenants, having discovered the 1978 registered rent, commenced proceedings claiming a sum representing the difference between the registered rent and the rent they had paid under the tenancy agreements. The respondents’ contention, that the substantial improvements carried out in 1980 had the effect of cancelling the 1978 registered rent, was accepted by Judge Phelan in the West London County Court, who also allowed their claim for arrears of rent and for possession. The tenants appealed, contending that the premises consisted of the same “dwelling-house” the subject of the 1978 registration.
Held The appeal was allowed. Sections 44-45 of the Rent Act 1977 provide that where a rent is registered for a dwelling-house, the rent recoverable under a regulated tenancy for the contractual or statutory period is limited to the registered rent. The registered rent is the maximum recoverable for the premises, whoever the parties may be at any time, until altered by events allowed under the Act. The respondents’ argument, that by virtue of the improvements and the provision of new furniture there had been “a material change either in the specification of the flat … or a material change in the particulars with regard to the tenancy” for the purpose of section 66 of the 1977 Act, and which thereby cancelled the 1978 registration, was not accepted. The specification of the flat contained in the 1978 registration remained on the face an apt description of the flat in 1983 and 1984, even in its improved and altered state. The 1978 registered rent did not cease for the purposes of the 1977 Act and the landlords ought to have sought a fresh registration at a much earlier date.
