Turley and another v Panton and another

Joint tenants must all act together in referring the rent of the demised premises to a tribunal This was an appeal by Mrs Ruby Turley and Mrs Jan Roberta Maxwell Deverall from an order of the Croydon and South-West London Rent Tribunal made on July 22 1974 on a reference by the respondents, Mr Henry Panton, and Mrs Beryl Panton, reducing the rent of a flat at 19a Marcilly Road, Wandsworth, London SW18, from £25 per week inclusive to £14 per week inclusive. Mr E Prince (instructed by Badham, Comins & Main) appeared for the appellants, and Miss D Wickham (instructed by R W Platt) represented the respondents. Mr H K Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared as amicus curiae. Giving judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that the flat in question was let by the appellants to four tenants Mr and Mrs Panton and a Mr and Mrs Lungu, for five months from March 1 1974 at £25 per week. In May, Mr Panton signed a form of application to the rent tribunal in which the persons to whom the premises were let were described as ‘Mr and Mrs Panton.’  The appellants in a letter to the tribunal stated, ‘Mr and Mrs Panton have lived in the flat for nearly two years and have shared with various couples,’ and in June 1974 they (the appellants) wrote to Mr and Mrs Panton referring to the fact that Mr and Mrs Lungu were returning to Africa. The tribunal made an order reducing the rent to £14 a week. The appellants now submitted that where as a matter of law there were four tenants under a particular contract of tenancy, a reference to the rent tribunal could be made only by those four together and not by some one or more of them. Mr Woolf had observed that a failure to comply with procedural regulations could be overcome and was not fatal to an application of the kind. That was correct, but what was here in issue was not a mere matter of procedure. It was something more fundamental, the question whether one of several joint lessees had any power at all to set the tribunal’s machinery in motion. He (his Lordship) thought that the answer was no. The general principle applicable to such contracts was that joint tenants held jointly, and in principle it would follow that all the tenants should act together. He thought that there would be other cases, perhaps many other cases, where questions of security of tenure would arise in applications of the kind, and it was not really conceivable to suppose that one tenant could by himself obtain an order for security. If a tenant did, would it apply to him only, or to all the tenants?  Or suppose one tenant got a reduction of rent, could another go later, and would the tribunal have jurisdiction to deal with the matter?  These were difficult problems which must arise if one departed from the elementary proposition that ‘lessees’ in the Act meant all persons who were for the time being lessees of the relevant property. The appeal should be allowed. ASHWORTH and MICHAEL DAVIES JJ agreed, and an order was made accordingly.