ABSTRACT
The use of the words ‘ought not to be granted a new tenancy’ in s 30(1)(a) of the 1954 Act gives the court a discretion as to whether or not to refuse to grant a new tenancy. This was accepted in Lyons v Central Commercial Properties Ltd, where the court considered how the discretion should be exercised. The majority of the court (Morris and Ormerod LJJ) felt that the discretion was wide and that the court could take into account all the relevant circumstances, including the tenant’s conduct in relation to his obligations under the tenancy and the reasons for the breach of the repairing covenant. Morris LJ said (at 773):
I do not think that it is desirable to say more than that once a court has found the facts as regards the tenant’s past performances and behaviour and any special circumstances which exist, then, while remembering that it is the future that is being considered, in that the issue is whether the tenant should be refused a new tenancy for the future, the court has to ask itself whether it would be unfair to the landlord, having regard to the tenant’s past performances and behaviour, if the tenant were to enjoy the advantage which the Act gives to him.
