A lease allows two or more persons to enjoy the benefits of owning an estate in the same

piece of land at the same time. Leasehold is identified under s.1 LPA 1925 as capable of
existing as either a legal or equitable interest.

In Lace v Chantler (1944) a lease was agreed upon between for the duration of war. The
issue arisen from this case is if the lease for the length of the war (unspecified time) was
valid. The court stated that it was not because the arrangement did not have the requisite
certainty as to the period of the lease. The term of the lease has to be determined before
the lease commenced.

The characteristics of a lease were identified in Street v Mountford (1985) as exclusive

possession, terms of years and rent. The rights created is what is of importance. The issue to
be discussed in this essay is that of terms of years (a term certain).

Exclusive possession must be granted with a defined period of time to the tenant. A periodic
tenancy is said to be certain as the duration is implied. It is a requirement that the term of
lease must be certain otherwise there is no lease: Say v Smith (1563). In Say v Smith the
question was as to the validity of an agreement under which a tenant was to have a right
(subject to paying the rent at the end of each 10year term) to a perpetual series of 10year
leases. It was held by the court that it was not valid as there was no certainty of term.

The principle of certainty of time was confirmed by the House of Lords in Prudential
Assurance Co. Ltd v London Residuary Body (1992). There was an agreement made in 1930
which stated that the tenancy shall continue until…the land is required by the Council which
is to be used for the widening of Walworth Road. The landlords claimed that this alleged
lease was void because the term was uncertain. Initially the House of Lords, with Lord
Templeman decided that the lease was void. Lord Browne-Wilkinson also said ‘the bizarre
outcome results from the application of an ancient and technical rule of law which requires
the maximum duration of a term of years to be ascertainable from the outset. No one has
been able to point out to any useful purpose, rationale or genesis that this rule serves at the
present day.

A lease for an uncertain term creates a lease for life at common law only if there is an
intention. The LPA 1925 being applied transformed the tenancy into a tenancy for 99
years, this is so whether or not the parties intended a lease for life. In Southward Housing
Co-operative v Walker (2015) the court looked at the parties' intentions and held that as
there was no intention to create a tenancy for life, it could not be one. As a result, the court
held that the tenancy was truly a contractual license and could be terminated by the
housing association. In the case of Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (2011)
the Supreme Court affirmed that a lease must be for a certain time period. A lease for life
takes effect as a lease for 90years under the Law of Property Act (1925) s.149 (6).
Contractual effect binding only the parties is to be given to a license agreement that cannot
take effect as a lease because of the uncertainty of term, even though the intention was to
create a lease.

Also stated in Leeds City Council v Broadley (2016) the landlord granted a first lease for a
fixed term of six (6) months, subsequently continued on a monthly basis until it is to be
terminated by one month’s notice by either party. It’s said that a single hybrid fixed/periodic
tenancy was a legal impossibility since it would lack certainty in term. This agreement failed
as it was regarded as a valid lease under common law. The LPA 1925 ss.1(1) and 205(1)
(xxvii) took over the common law position. The arrangements created a single tenancy due
to the terms and as a result had to be regarded as a valid arrangement.

When a lease is being drafted between parties (lessor and lessee) a term which is uncertain
will render the lease void or can result in it being a lease for life, under common law. The
period of time for which the lease will be agreed upon by the lessee must be clearly stated;
otherwise it will be left for the courts to find the intention of the parties by reading into the
agreement.