Property Law: Examining Leases, Licenses, and Street v. Mountford

This report delves into the core principles of property law, emphasizing the distinction between leases and licenses. It examines the legal framework, including the Law of Property Act 1925 and its relevance to landlord-tenant relationships, with specific attention to Sri Lankan context. The report analyzes the essential criteria for a lease, particularly the grant of exclusive possession, a certain term, and the payment of rent, as established in the seminal case of Street v. Mountford. It explores the implications of this case in determining whether an agreement constitutes a lease or a license, highlighting the significance of exclusive possession and the intention of the parties involved. The report also discusses the protections afforded to tenants and the evolution of judicial attitudes towards lease agreements. The analysis encompasses relevant case studies and statutory provisions, providing a comprehensive understanding of property law principles and their practical applications. This assignment is contributed by a student to be published on the website Desklib. Desklib is a platform which provides all the necessary AI based study tools for students.

Law of Property

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Main Body.......................................................................................................................................1
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

Introduction
Property law has been of a great importance for the society. It is the duty of this act to
teach the owner of the property about their rights. Whether it is a freehold property or a leasehold
property. It includes the law related to landlords and tenants where the law serves to protect the
right of the landlord as well as tenants from conflicts that arises between them. Also while
entering into the exposure of rent agreement there are certain terms and condition that should be
evaluated which if not considered can result into wrong agreement can hamper their rights. This
assignment will consider the case of Street VS Mount ford and would consider the difference
between the leases and licenses that the owner of the property and the tenant enters.
Main Body
Land as per the law of property act 1925 includes any tenure of mines and minerals
whether or not it is held apart from the surface, building or parts of buildings. The main reason of
this law is to facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land. Some of the legislation has since been
updated and supplemented over time period, the framework and guidelines outlined in Law of
property act 1925 remains in effect till date (Baron, 2013). The law of property act 1925 sets out
certain general principles as to legal estates, equitable interests and powers. This act applies to
conveyancing and real property matters and applies to things in action and things in possession.
In Sri Lankan constituency it recognises only civil and political rights and not socio-economic
rights. Hence the is no express provision to safeguard citizens housing rights. Article 14(1)(h)
provides every citizen to entitle to the freedom of movement and of choosing his residence
within Sri Lanka.
Rent legislation in Sri Lanka states the relationship between landlord and tenant. This act
attempts to strike a balance in relation to the ejectment of the tenants. It has introduces certain
grounds on the basis of which landlord can institute action to eject a tenant, which are as follows:
 Arrears of Rent
 Permission is reasonably required by landlord
 Termination of employment
 Use of premises for immoral or illegal purpose
 Unauthorised structural alterations
 If there is change in the premises
1

 for the development of premises
 Abandonment
 Subletting of the property already rented and there is clause which prevent the tenant to
sublet the property.
There is special provision that has been created by the Sri Lankan law makers about the
protection of tenants. It aims to protect tenants so that they are not forcefully ejected from the
house. This special provision is explicable by public policy (Blattman, Hartman and Blair, 2014).
This act prohibits a landlord or any other person from using different threatening tools so as to
forcefully make the person to vacate the house. In this the landlord is also prevented from
causing any tempering with any part of the premises in which tenant is living.
For making any agreement which involves the creation of any rent agreement between
two parties in which landlord gives the right to tenant to live on his property is defined under this
act. While entering into a contract of leasing the property the landlord promises to exclusive
possession for a certain term. According to the famous case study which was decided by the
court of law in the case of Street VS Mount ford provides a affirmation that lease is a contract
whereby one person who grants the tenant exclusive possession over its property.
As identified by Lord Temple man three essential criteria for a lease includes:
 The Grant of Exclusive possession: Exclusive possession is the most controversial and
involved necessity for a lease contract. It is termed as possession of legal entitlement.
This is regarded as if person has a occupation of house this generates the presumption of
a exclusive possession. Also if the person does not have exclusive possession then it may
not generate a lease. So it is necessary for landlord and tenant to create an exclusive
possession of house. It is also required in the commercial agreements such as it was
discussed in the case of Shell-Mex and BP Ltd VS Manchester Garages Ltd. Also the
terms requiring occupants to share the accommodation and not to allow visitors would be
considered as inconsistent with the condition of exclusive occupation. In this lord temple
man also decided that a lodger is a licensee as oppose to a tenant. A lodger is a one who
shares occupation of the premises with owner. Here lodger does not have the right to
exclude owner form property. It is also decided in the case of Smith VS Seghill overseers
that where the occupation arises through employment this is likely to create a license as
oppose to a tenancy. Hence to determine an occupation of property the test applied is
2

whether the servant is required to occupy premises in order to better perform his duties as
a servant.
 For a period of time which is certain: As per the decided case to create a lease grant it
must decided that the period of time should be certain. It means that there should be an
identifiable start date and also a certainty as to the duration of the lease must be specified.
In the case where no commencement date is specified in the agreements it will hamper
the validity of lease (Cifrino, 2014). But if the commencement date is not certain but
clearly defined it will create a valid lease. Certainty of lease must be specific and should
be fixed for maximum duration. A lease which is granted for life can be saved through a
section 149(6) of the law of property act 1925 which provides that such leases are to take
effect as a lease is granted for 90 years determinable on death of that person.
 The payment of Rent: A consideration is required for an agreement of rent to take
place. Hence for creation of tenancy this is not always required. But as decided in the
case of Colchester council VS Smith absence of rent may be indicative that tenancy was
intended by the parties to contract.
In the case of Street VS Mount ford in this case a contract was entered between Mr
street and Mrs Mount ford under which it was given a right to occupy a room which was
numbered 5. it was described as a licence and expressly stated that the parties did not intended to
create a relationship of landlord and tenant. It was expressly done because they wanted to enjoy
benefit of Rent act that was prevailing in the law. On the contrary Lord Temple man gave
judgement that in that when court decides as to whether the agreement created a lease or not the
court should focus on the essential elements of the lease (Ellison and Boyd, 2013). The house of
lord wanted to prevent sham transactions that tries to present leases as licences so that they can
evade a Rent Act. It was also said that if the agreement satisfies all the conditions of tenancy, the
agreement produced a tenancy and parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting
that they only created a license. So it was held that agreement entered was a lease. It was also
said that any express reservation which is implied to the landlord of limited rights to enter and
view the premises and to repair and maintain the house hold only specifies the fact that grantee is
entitled to exclusive possession and is tenant. In this case it was held that Mrs. Mount ford is
entitled to possession of is not a lodger. Mr Street provided that neither attendance nor service
and it is only reserved as a limited rights of inspection and maintenance. And if we see a
3

traditional store Mrs. Mount ford not being a lodger and must be tenant. It was consented by the
parties to create a licence and they believe that the agreement that they entered into created a
license. Mr street submitted that the court cannot in the circumstances decide that the agreement
created a tenancy without interfering with the freedom of contract that is enjoyed by the parties
to the contract. It was argued that Mrs. Mount ford was given the freedom to offer the right to
occupy the rooms comprised in the agreements (Cohen, 2013). Also Mrs Mount ford enjoyed the
freedom so as to negotiate with Mr Street for agreeing with different terms and conditions while
entering into contract. Hence both the parties enjoyed the freedom to enter into contract and to
analyse the terms and conditions which was written in the agreement. But if the agreement in the
law once concluded can only be determined by the consideration of the effect of an agreement. If
the agreement entered into satisfied all the requirements of tenancy then it would produce a
tenancy and the parties to agreement cannot alter the effect of agreements that is produced by
tenancy. Parties cannot alter the effect of the agreements by demanding that they only created a
licence. Hence it was given that “The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual
digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists
that he intended to make and has made a spade.”
As lease is ownership of land unlike freehold premises which lasts forever, it last for a
specified period of time. It takes a form of legal estate or it may be an equitable interest
depending on the formality used to create it. If a person occupies a premises under a lease they
have more protection from the one who occupies it as a licensee. License have limited protection
as in various circumstances the tenant may have been evicted at will or where there is contractual
license the terms of notice provided (Drahos, 2016). For determine whether the agreement is a
lease or a licence. The name of parties labelled on the statement could be overridden by courts so
as to avoid the practices done by landlords by avoiding the obligations under the rent act. It was
a concern that the rise of rent act presented much protection to tenants which used to discourage
citizens to become landlords. It made a judicial change in the attitude towards the questions
whether an agreement was lease or a licence. In the case of Street VS Mount ford it declared
the need for an objective approach and the statement that was given by the parties in the
agreements as a lease or licence is not crucial.
4

Conclusion
As per the given report it is analysed that the law of property is one of the important law
that came into force. This law helps in deciding the legal structure relating to the properties. As it
is seen that it has decided the distinction between the licence and lease. This also helped in
knowing that the only intention which is relevant is the intention demonstrated by the agreement
to grant exclusive possession for a term as rent. Also various analyses and evaluated cases and
statutes has been given in the assignment. The famous case of Street Vs Mount ford is the key
to decide whether the agreement is license or is a lease.
5

References
Books and Authors
Baron, J.B., 2013. Rescuing the bundle-of-rights metaphor in property law. U. Cin. L. Rev. 82,
p.57.
Blattman, C., Hartman, A.C. and Blair, R.A., 2014. How to promote order and property rights
under weak rule of law? An experiment in changing dispute resolution behavior through
community education. American Political Science Review. 108(1). pp.100-120.
Chawla, L. and Derr, V., 2012. The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and
youth. In The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology.
Cifrino, C.J., 2014. Virtual property, virtual rights: Why contract law, not property law, must be
the governing paradigm in the law of virtual worlds. BCL Rev.55. p.235.
Cohen, F.S., 2013. Dialogue on private property. In Private and Common Property (pp. 21-52).
Routledge.
Drahos, P., 2016. A philosophy of intellectual property. Routledge.
Ellison, N.B. and Boyd, D.M., 2013. Sociality through social network sites. In The Oxford
handbook of internet studies.
Holgersson, M., 2012. Innovation and intellectual property: strategic IP management and
economics of technology.
Norton, R.K. and Bieri, D.S., 2014. Planning, Law, and Property Rights: A US–European Cross-
national Contemplation. International Planning Studies. 19(3-4). pp.379-397.
Salmon, M., 2016. Women and the law of property in early America. UNC Press Books.
Sganga, C., 2015. EU copyright law between property and fundamental rights: a proposal to
connect the dots. In Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age (pp. 1-26). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Smith, H.E., 2012. Property as the Law of Things. Harvard Law Review. 125(7). pp.1691-1726.
Weir, M. and Hunter, T., 2012. Property rights and seam gas extraction: The modern property
law conundrum. Property Law Review. 2(2). pp.71-83.
6