Can George be Evicted from the House?

In this question, the issue is if George can be evicted from the house in which his daughter Rose
and her husband Paul were registered as joint tenants.
In this regard, the law provides that co-ownership is created where two or more persons
simultaneously holds a given estate in land and are therefore entitled to an interest in such a state.
Joint tenancy: These types of tenancies are of co-ownership of land. Therefore in this case, each
tenant or a joint pain and his equally and "wholly entitled on the whole" to the estate. This was
particularly mentioned by Lord Millett in Burton v Camden LBC (2000). Under the law, a joint
tenancy can be present at as a logical interest or an equitable interest or both. In case of a joint
tenancy, no joint tenant is considered to hold a share in the land. Instead, each tenant is invested
with the whole interest in the land (Wright v Gibbons, 1949), irrespective of whether such
interest is present in freehold or leasehold. Particularly, there are two characteristics present in
case of joint tenancies beauty which they can be distinguished from the tenancies in common.
First of all, a right of survivorship is provided by joint tenancy. Secondly, it is always required
under joint tenancies that there should be the presence of so-called four unities.
Right of survivorship: another legal term that can be used for it is the ius accrescendi. Therefore,
this right provides that in case of any of the joint tenants, the entire estate that is co-owned by the
parties is considered to 'survive to' the joint tenant(s), who is living. Therefore the deceased
cannot provide that their rights in the estate should be passed on to the nominated beneficiaries in
the will of the deceased. The reason behind the disposition of law is that by definition, the parties
have no share in the estate to pass on as are not present in case of a joint tenancy. However it can
be said that to a certain degree, the law in this case is archaic, that it is related with the multiple

deaths of joint tenants. Therefore it is provided that if several but not all the joint tenants have
died at the same time, and it is not certain that they have died in which order, it is presumed as a
matter of law that the deaths have taken place in order of seniority. This is also known as the
"commorientes" rule.
Therefore in such a case, the surviving joint tenant(s) take the complete estate that was co-owned
by the parties regardless of their lack of contribution towards the initial purchase of the estate.
Therefore, survivorship is generally a useful measure that can be used for making sure that the
family home states within the family. In such this is generally legal title is not important. It is
merely a paper titled, that is held on trust. This means that the legal title denotes the party that
has the fiduciary and administrative responsibilities regarding the land. On the other hand,
equitable title denotes the person who is going to be benefited from the land (Bond, 2017).
Change in legal joint tenancy: it is suitable for the joint tenants to opt for the transfer of legal
estate in land to themselves or to transfer the legal estate to others and hold the land as legal joint
tenants.
The Four Unities: in case of a joint tenancy, it is necessary that the so-called four unities should
be present (AG Securities v Vaughan, 1990). These can be described as follows:
Possession: possession is related with the right of each joint statement to have possession of the
land and the right of each tenant to the land is applicable to each and every part of such a state.
Consequently, it is not possible for a joint tenant to take possession of any part of the land
because by section involves that part of the land, to the exclusion of the other joint tenants is not
allowed by the law (Meyer v Riddick, 1990).

Interest: This form of unity has been derived from the notion that each joint tenant is allowed by
the law to be "wholly entitled to the whole". Therefore the interest of each joint tenant is exactly
the same regarding the nature, extent and duration.
Title: according to the unity of title it has been provided that each joint tenant derives the title to
land from the same act or document, for example an act of adverse possession or the document
like the grant. In case of a co-owned the legal estate, it is also meant by this type of unity that
when any purchaser is considering to purchase the title to a part of the co-owner of the land, such
purchaser is required to purchase only one title (Hoyle, 1984).
Time: simply stated, it is required and the disunity that the interests of all the joint tenants should
have been invested in them at the same time.
Family breakdown and the joint tenancies: joint tenancies have resulted in the rise of issues
where the joint tenants for a married couple or, they were living in a civil partnership and the
relationship between the parties had broken down irretrievably.
Ending the periodic lease: the first issue that may arise in this regard is that the legal joint
tenancy. Over the periodic lease needs unanimous act by the joint tenants. Therefore, when there
is a breakdown of the relationship, such unanimous action may not be possible. Consequently, it
has been indicated by the court that a single joint tenant may be allowed to bring the list to an
end by refusing to enter the further term for such periodic tenancy (Joint tenants, 2001).
However in this regard and issue has been noted in Qazi v Barrow (2003). This issue is that the
service of notice to quit by one tenant regarding a periodically is effectively brought the lease to