1 Relevance of the General Law
7.131 The landlord’s remedies for breach of tenancy under the 1986 Act (above) exist alongside the general law governing forfeiture for breach of covenant, and the 1986 Act does not expressly exclude the application of the general law governing forfeiture pursuant to a proviso for re-entry in the tenancy agreement.
There is a question whether, as the courts generally strike down contractual terms which diminish the tenant’s statutory protection,291 the landlord must confine himself to the statutory cases for possession where these cover the breaches of covenant complained of, and not exercise a proviso for re-entry in the lease itself. The validity of proceeding by way of forfeiture in such circumstances was, however, accepted arguendo in Kent v Conniff.292 Furthermore, in Parry v Million Pigs Ltd.293 the requirements as to notice of re-entry in a forfeiture clause were examined in detail, no issue being made as to the availability of forfeiture as a remedy per se.7.132 There can, therefore, be little doubt as to the availability of forfeiture under the general law as an alternative remedy alongside the statutory remedies provided for in Part I of and Sch 3 to the 1986 Act. For the reasons mentioned below, however, it is seldom used. In contrast, forfeiture pursuant to a proviso for re-entry has considerable importance and utility in relation to Farm Business Tenancies, as the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 contains no statutory forfeiture provisions akin to Sch 3 to the 1986 Act. The forfeiture provisions are discussed more fully, therefore, in Chapter 4 in the context of Farm Business Tenancies, to which reference should also be made.294