1 Notice to quit part

7.37 In the absence of a clause in the tenancy, authorising resumption of possession of part of the holding, a notice to quit part of the land demised is bad at common law.⁹⁹ This restrictive rule is relaxed by statute, however, in several instances.

7.38 The contract of tenancy may itself authorise resumption of part of the holding. Moreover, if it authorises resumption for the purpose of facilitating a non-agricultural use of the land, the landlord will not have to give the statutory period of notice to quit. The clause will only be good, however, if it provides for sufficient notice of resumption to enable the tenant to make claims for ‘additional’ compensation for disturbance and high farming, should he wish to do so.¹⁰¹

7.39 Additionally, s 31 of the 1986 Act authorises notice to quit part of a holding for certain specified (and very limited) purposes. Thus, s 31(1)(a) also allows notice to quit part of it is given for the ‘purpose’ of adjusting the boundaries between, or amalgamating, agricultural units (or parts of such units). Section 31(2) also allows notice to quit part for the following objects:

•the erection of cottages or other houses for farm labourers with or without gardens;

•the provision of gardens for cottages or other houses for farm labourers;

•the provision of allotments;

•the letting of the land as a smallholding under Part I of the Agriculture Act 1970;¹⁰²

•the planting of trees;

•the opening or working of a deposit of coal, ironstone, limestone, brick-earth, or other mineral, or a stone quarry or a clay, sand or gravel pit, or the construction of any building to be used in connection therewith;

•the making of a watercourse or reservoir;

•the making of a road, railway, tram road, siding, canal or basin, or a wharf, pier, or other work connected there with.

7.40 The notice must state that it is given for the purpose or object in question. Most notices to quit served under s 31 will also be within Case B, in that many of the ‘objects’ (above) are non-agricultural and require planning permission. The security provisions apply, and the tenant can invoke an arbitration to challenge the notice to quit in appropriate circumstances. If the notice to quit is unqualified, it can be challenged by a counter notice requiring its reference to the agricultural land tribunal for consent.

7.41 Finally, notice to quit part of a holding can also be served where there has been severance of the landlord’s reversionary estate. Section 140 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that wherever there has been a severance ‘by conveyance, surrender or otherwise’ of any land comprised in a lease, then any right of re-entry (including a right to serve notice to quit) is apportioned and remains annexed to the severed parts of the reversionary estate. The tenant, however, continues to hold under one contract of tenancy, notwithstanding severance.¹⁰³ Note, however, that s 140 only applies where there is a ‘severance’ of the reversion, viz a ‘real’ conveyance from the original reversioner. So, in Persey v Bazley,¹⁰⁴ it was held that the conveyance of the reversion on development land to bare trustees, to enable a notice to quit to be served as to that part only, was invalid and failed to effect a ‘severance’ in the required sense. The conveyance to the trustees was revocable at any time, and though not a ‘sham’ in the legal sense, was a device aimed solely at facilitating the service of notice to quit part by nominee trustees.¹⁰⁵ The decision has been criticised, not least because a tenant is not entitled to go ‘behind the curtain’ and seek information about any transaction affecting the beneficial interest in the reversion. He is obliged, on accepted principles, to deal with the holder of the legal estate, and him only. In Persey the fact that the conveyance was to bare trustees was evident on the fact of the deeds. In many cases it will not be. In the latter situation, the anomalous result will be that the tenant will not be able to challenge a severance, having insufficient information as to the nature of the trust and the equitable interests in the reversion. Neither has he the right to obtain such information. Whatever its merits, however, Persey v Bazley is undoubtedly in line with other decisions on s 140, in which the courts have consistently sought to protect the tenant.¹⁰⁶ It also accords with the more restrictive legislative policy reflected in s 31 of the 1986 Act.¹⁰⁷